June 2019 Vol. 75 No. 2 Editor: John Barroso

en passant

Journal of The Pittsburgh Chess Club 5604 Solway Street, Suite 209 - Squirrel Hill Pittsburgh PA 15217 (412) 421-1881 www.pittsburghcc.org Facebook: pittsburghchessclub Twitter: #pghchess

2019 picnic is on August 31st NEW location: Anderson Shelter, Schenley Park. More flat space, extraordinary view of the city!

From 4:00pm to 9:00pm. Raffles, simul, games, burgers, dogs, and a

surprise Brazilian dish from the “chef”! $6 per person, all you can eat!

Covered dishes and desserts welcome!

Rivers Casino Fundraiser Dinner!

July 25th, 6 to 10pm.

Chess Lecture included!

Superb attack, Remarkable defense! Peter Jansen produced a brilliant analysis of

Jeff Schreiber’s (above) draw against Joe Winwood played in the 20th Byland

Memorial in April 2019.

Carsten Hansen, Danish FIDE Master

Like in Fischer vs. Byrne, in “Textbook Finish” Hansen wonders if black overlooked or let white finish in beautiful style. “Textbook Finish” is Carsten’s Game Analysis.

NEW BOOK by Carsten Hansen:

404 Puzzles to Improve Your Tactical Vision

Found on Amazon.com

Log into Smile.Amazon.com and chose the Pittsburgh Chess Club as beneficiary. Amazon gives us actual cash to help us defray expenses!

En Passant Chess Journalists of America Award Best Club Bulletin 2004, 2005, 2006 Best Club Bulletin Cover, 11/2004

Best USA Club Newsletter, CJA 2016 Best USA Club Newsletter, CJA 2017 Best USA Club Newsletter, CJA 2018

En Passant Editor: John Barroso Pittsburgh Chess Club Board Members: OFFICERS and term-endings: President Boyd Reed, 2020 Vice-President Melih Özbek, 2021 Treasurer Mark Jeromin, 2021 Secretary Shane Barrett, 2019

Board Members: Meyers, Jerry, 2019

Opaska, Michael, 2019 Plato, Steven, 2019

Priore, Ashley, 2020 Szurek, James, 2021

Club Hours: Wednesdays: 1pm to 9pm Saturdays: noon to 5pm

and 7 to 9pm Find us! Like us! Post messages! at pittsburghchessclub Follow us on Twitter

#pghchess

Volunteers needed: to steward on Wednesdays and Saturdays

boyd.m.reed@gmail.com

Editor’s Notes Time has come for me to say goodbye as En Passant Editor.

Over the last three years I have produced this newsletter, we won three years in a row “Best USA Newsletter” from the Chess Journalists of America (CJA) organization (and

upcoming award winners announcement is to happen in late July this year).

I basically accepted running for my first election at the Club because of Clyde Kapynos, who ranks amongst the most

pleasant persons I have met. And I continued at the Club all these years as an effort to be around chess but also, to a rea-sonable extent in the last few years, to the praises and en-couragements of Jeffrey Schreiber who, in his own way, is

a very honest and respectable person.

I have done ten years of service to the Club, always as Board member, several years as Club Secretary and a few as Membership Director and En Passant Editor at the same time. I will continue to grill at the annual picnic but other

obligations at this moment force me to pass on the En Pas-sant editorial to someone else. With this edition I end my editorial work, covering all editions from December 2015 to June 2019, all printed like a magazine and in color, with all printing expenses all this time paid by me as a donation

to the Club.

I thank all readers and contributors during these almost four years. I hope the En Passant will continue to be the success-ful and historical publication we have had, for seventy-five

years now!

John Barroso,

En Passant Editor

1

GM Rafael Leitão vs. Mario Vaz, Simultaneous Exhibition Mario Augusto Vaz Junior, chess player since age 10, was Pirelli Tires Chess Club founder and Director for 13 years, as well as SESC São Caetano do Sul (São Paulo, Brazil) Chess Coordinator. GM Leitão, Rafael - Vaz Jr, Mario A [A55] Simultaneous Exhibition, SESC São Caetano do Sul, São Paulo, Brazil.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.e4 e5 6.g3 Be7 7.Bg2 Qc7 8.0–0 0–0

GM Leitão opened with the Queen’s Gambit and I responded with the Philidor Defense. 9.h3 Re8 10.Be3 a6 11.Rc1 Nf8 12.b4 c5

White seriously decided to attack on the queen side by move the “b” pawn and I responded with the “c” pawn to close the center of the board.

13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.cxd5 c4 (diagram on the right) The “c” passed pawn nearly guarantees equality. It is true that white also has a passed pawn in “d” but with Bd6 I believe I can stop it. 16.Qd2 b5 17.a4 Bd6 18.Ra1 Bd7 19.axb5 axb5 20.Qc3 f6 21.Ra3 Rxa3 22.Qxa3 Rb8 23.Ra1 Be8 24.Nd2 Nd7 25.Nb1 Nb6 26.Bxb6 Qxb6 27.Nc3

White controls the “a” column but cannot make progress. The d6 bishop prevents the advance of the passed pawn as well as attacks b4. The b4 pawn cannot fall or else the black pawn on b5 and c4 may advance.

2

27...Qc7 28.h4 Qe7 29.Rb1 Rb7 30.Bh3 Ra7

After 30...Ra7 I offered a draw and GM Leitão accepted. In the final position black appears to be a bit better but a draw is satisfactory given I was playing against seven-time Brazilian champion (1996, 1997, 1998, 2004, 2011, 2013 and 2014). ½–½

GM Krikor Sevag Mekhitarian vs. Mario Vaz, Simultaneous Exhibition SESC São Caetano do Sul, São Paulo, Brazil. 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.f4 Qa5 5.Bd3 e5 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be3 Nbd7 8.0–0 Be7

GM Mekhitarian (twice Brazilian champion: 2012 and 2015) opened with the Kings Pawn and I responded with the Modern Philidor Defense. 9.h3 Bh5 10.g4 exf4 11.Bxf4 Bg6 12.Qd2 0–0 13.Rae1 Rae8 14.Qh2 Qb4 15.Bc1h6 16.a3 Qb6 17.Kh1 d5?

I attacked the center with the queen’s pawn (a mistake). I previously thought about 17....a6 as I believed he would play e5. A possible sequence would be 18.e5 dxe5 19.dxe5 Nd5 20.Bxg6 fxg6 but the correct response for black was actually 17...c5 18.e5 dxe5 19.dxe5 Bxd3 20.cxd3 Nh7. 18.e5 Bxd3 19.exf6 Bxf6 20.cxd3 Bxd4 21.Qd6 Rxe1 22.Rxe1 Bxc3 23.bxc3 Qf2 24.Qf4! 24.Qxd7?? would be a blunder and would give black a draw after 24...Qxf3+ 25.Kg1 (25.Kh2?? Qf2+ 26.Kh1 Qxe1+ 27.Kg2 Re8) 25...Qg3+ 26.Kf1 Qf3+ 27.Kg1 Qg3+ 28.Kf1 Qf3+ 29.Kg1

24...Qc2 25.Qd2 Qa4 26.Qf4 Qc2 27.Re7 Nc5 28.Qd2 Qb1 29.Re1? 29.Re1 was a mistake (given the GM is playing a Simul against 20 opponents, mistakes happen). Correct would be 29.Ne1, defending d3 and after 29...Nb3 (if 29...Qb3 30.Kg2 a5 31.Qc2 Qxc2+ 32.Nxc2 Nxd3 33.Be3) 30.Qb2 Qxc1 31.Qxb3 Qf4 32.Qb2 h5 33.Qe2 29...Nxd3 30.Rd1 Nc5 I made my move and offered a draw. After thinking for a moment GM Krikor accepted. This outcome was due to his loss of the d3 pawn. ½–½ ▀

3

BOOK ‘EM Bent Larsen By Steve O’Connor

Jørgen Bent Larsen was a Danish grandmaster and author. Known for his imaginative and unorthodox style of play, he was the first Western player to pose a serious challenge to the Soviet Union’s dominance in chess. He is considered to be the strongest player born in Denmark and the strongest from Scandanavia until the emergence of Mangus Carlson.

Larsen was a six-time Danish Champion and a Candidate for the World Chess Championship on four occasions, reaching the semifinal three times. He had multiple wins over eight World Champions: Max Euwe , Mikhail Botvinnik, Vassily Smyslov, Mikhail Tal, Tigran Petrosian, Boris Spassky, Bobby Fischer, and Anatoly Karpov.

Larsen was born in Tilsted, near Thisted in Denmark and was educated at Aalborg Cathedral School. In January 1942 Larsen contracted a number of childhood diseases. Although none had any permanent effects, it was during this period that Larsen discovered chess. He went on to represent Denmark twice in the World Junior Championship, in 1951 at Birmingham (placing fifth) and in 1953 at Copenhagen (placing eighth). He started playing seriously at the age of 17 when he moved to Copenhagen to study Civil Engineering, but he never graduated choosing instead to play chess professionally. He became an International Master at the age of 19 in 1954, from his bronze-medal performance on board one at the Amsterdam Olympiad. He won his first of six Danish Championships in 1954 repeating this feat in 1955, 1956, 1959, 1963, and 1964.

Larsen defeated Fridrik Olafsson in an exhibition match at Oslo in 1955 by 4½–3½. He won at Copenhagen in 1956 with 8/9.

Around this time Larsen diversified his style, switching over to risky and unusual openings in some of his games, to try to throw his opponents off balance; this led to the recovery of his form and further development of his chess. He finished 2nd at the 1963 Halle Zonal with 13/19, behind winner Lajos Portisch, to advance to the Interzonal the next year. At Belgrade 1964, he shared 5th–6th places with 10/17. He tied for 5th–7th places at Beverwijk 1964 with 9½/15. Larsen's unusual openings were on full display at the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal, where he shared the 1st–4th places on 17/23 with Boris Spassky, Mikhail Tal, and Vassily Smyslov, advancing as a Candidate.

In the 1965 Candidates' matches, he defeated Borislav Ivkov at Bled by 5½–2½ but lost a hard-fought semifinal, also at Bled by 4½–5½ to former World Champion Mikhail Tal, who won the tenth game with a complex speculative knight sacrifice in the center. Larsen won a playoff match for alternates, an eventual third-place Candidates' position, against Efim Geller by 5–4 at Copenhagen in1966. In 1967 he won the Sousse Interzonal with the score of 15½/21 after Fischer withdrew; this placed him 1½ points ahead of the field. He then won his first-round match against Lajos Portisch by 5½–4½ at Porec in1968. At Malmo, however, he lost the semifinal by 2½–5½ to Boris Spassky, who went on to win the title.

In 1970 he shared 2nd in the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal, on 15/23, behind Bobby Fischer. He reached his top rank in the Elo Rating System at the start of 1971, equal third in the world (with Korchnoi, behind Fischer and Spassky) with a rating of 2660. He then defeated Wolfgang Uhlmann by

4

5½–3½ at Las Palmas in 1971. But then he lost the semifinal 0–6 at Denver to Fischer, who also went on to win the title.

Larsen later claimed that his one-sided loss to Fischer was due in part to his condition during the match: "The organizers chose the wrong time for this match. I was languid with the heat and Fischer was better prepared for such exceptional circumstances... I saw chess pieces through a mist and, thus, my level of playing was not good."[4]

In 1973 he failed to advance from the Leningrad Interzonal; he tied for 5th–6th places with 10/17, with Karpov and with Viktor Korchnoi winning. In 1976 he won the Biel Interzonal, but lost his 1977 Candidates' match, a rematch of their 1968 encounter, to Lajos Portisch by 3½–6½ at Rotterdam. At the Riga Interzonal of 1979, Larsen scored 10/17 for 7th place, and did not advance.

Starting in the mid-1960s, Larsen enjoyed a very successful run in major tournaments around the world, and he and Fischer became the two strongest players outside the Soviet Union. Larsen played in a lot of strong events, at least as many as any other top player, and repeatedly finished ahead of the top Soviet players. He won at Le Harve 1966 with 9/11, ahead of Lev Polugaevsky. At Santa Monica in 1966, he placed third with 10/18, behind Spassky and Fischer. He won at Havana 1967 with 15/19, ahead of a strong group that included Mikhail Taimanov, Smyslov, Polugaevsky, Gligorić, and Miroslav Filip. He shared 2nd–3rd places at Dundee in 1967 with 5½/8. At Beverwijk in 1967, he was 4th with 8½/15. At Monte Carlo in1967, he shared 3rd–4th with 6/9. He shared 1st–2nd at Winnipeg in 1967 with 6/9, along with Klaus Darga ahead of Spassky and Keres. He won at Palma de Mallorca 1967 with 13/17, ahead of Smyslov, Botvinnik, Portisch, Gligorić, and Borislav Ivkov. He was awarded the first Chess Oscar in 1967.

Somewhat unusual for the late 1960s, Larsen—as one of the world's top players—often entered large Open tournaments run on the Swiss system, and had plenty of success. He won the Canadian Open at Toronto in 1968 and St. Johns in1970. He also won the U. S. Open Championships at Aspen, Colorado in 1968 and Boston 1970.

Larsen won at Monte Carlo 1968 with 9½/13, ahead of Botvinnik, Smyslov, Vlastimil Hort, Robert Byrne, Portisch, and Pal Benko. This completed a string of five consecutive clear wins of major tournaments, a feat that had not previously been accomplished in modern chess. Larsen shared 2nd–3rd places at Palma de Mallorca in 1968 with 13/17, along with Spassky; Viktor Korchnoi won. In a playoff match for third place in the Candidates Tournament, he defeated Tal at Eersel 1969 by 5½–2½ in a rematch of their 1965 encounter. He won at Palma de Mallorca in 1969 with 12/17 ahead of Petrosian, Korchnoi, Hort, and Spassky. There was a further victory at Busum1969 with 11/15 ahead of Polugaevsky. At San Juan in 1969, he scored 9/15 for a shared 6th–7th place. He defeated Hekki Westerninen by 6–2 at Helsinki in 1969 in a match in which every game was decisive.

Larsen won at Lugano in 1970 with 9½/14, ahead of Olafsson. In the USSR vs. Rest of World match at Belgrade in 1970, he played first board for the World side, ahead of Fischer, and scored 2½/4 against Spassky and Leonid Stein. At Leiden in 1970, he shared 3rd–4th places with 5½/12. He defeated Lubomir Kavalek in a 1970 exhibition match at Solingen by 6–2. He won at Vincovici in 1970 with 10½/15, ahead of David Bronstein, Hort, and Gligorić. At Palma de Mallorca in 1970, he shared 6th–7th places with 9/15. Larsen shared 8th–9th places at San Antonio in1972 with 8½/15. He won at Teeside in 1972 with 11/15, ahead of Ljubojević and Portisch. At Las Palmas in 1972, he shared 2nd–3rd places on 11/15.

Larsen won at Hastings in 1972–73 with 11½/15. At Bauang 1973, he scored 6/9 for 4th place. Larsen won at Grenaa in 1973 in the Nordic Championship with 8½/10. He won again at Manila in 1973 with 12½/15, ahead of Ljubojević and Kavalek. In 1975, Larsen defeated Danish Champion and future International Master Gert Iskov at Gellerup by the score of 5½–½ and lost a match to GM Ulf Anderssen by the score of 5½–2½ at Stockholm the same year.

5

He represented Denmark six times in Chess Olympiad play, always on first board, and compiled an aggregate score of 75/109 (+61 −20 =28), for 68.8%. He always played a very high number of games and in 1954 played a maximum of 19 games. He won three board medals, one gold and two bronze.

Amsterdam 1954, board one, 13½/19 (+11 −3 =5), board bronze medal; Moscow 1956, board one, 14/18 (+11 −1 =6), board gold medal; Munich 1958, board one, 13/19 (+11 −4 =4); Havana 1966, board one, 11/18 (+9 −5 =4); Lugano 1968, board one, 10½/18 (+8 −5 =5); Siegen 1970, board one, 13/17 (+11 −2 =4), board bronze medal.

In 1988 he lost a game to Deep Thought in the Software Toolworks Championship, becoming the first Grandmaster and, at the time, the player with the highest Elo rating (by then 2560) to be defeated by a computer in tournament play. In 1993 Larsen won a return match against the supercomputer Deep Blue in Copenhagen by 2½–1½.

Despite his advancing age, Larsen continued to play in tournaments. In 1999. he finished 7th out of 10 in the Danish Championship, but in the 2000 event he was forced to withdraw when he became seriously ill with an edema which required brain surgery. Thereafter he only played a few tournaments in Buenos Aires. He was 4th in the 2002 Najdorf Memorial knock-out. In the April 2009 FIDE list, he had an Elo rating of 2415.

Larsen's final tournament was Magistral Internacional Ruibal 2008 in Buenos Aires. He delivered a poor performance and lost all nine games he played.

His health had been poor for some considerable time and he had been virtually inactive for years. He died in Buenos Aires in 2010

Larsen was known as a deep thinking and highly imaginative player, more willing to try unorthodox ideas and to take more risks than most of his peers. This aspect of his play could even manifest itself in his choice of openings. He is a firm believer in the value of surprise. Consequently, he often resorts to dubious variations in various openings. He also likes to complicate positions even though it may involve considerable risk. He has a great deal of confidence in his game and fears no one. His unique style has proven extremely effective against relatively weak opponents but has not been too successful against top-notchers.

He was one of the very few modern grandmasters to have employed Birds Opening (1.f4) with any regularity, and had a long-term association with the move 1.b3, a system commonly known as Larsen’s Opening or the Nimzo–Larsen Attack. He played the Dutch Defense with success at a time when the opening was rarely seen at the top level. He revived the almost dormant Bishops Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4) with success in 1964 and explored new ways for Black to seek activity in the Philidor Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6). Indeed, he wrote a short monograph on the Philidor, Why Not The Philidor Defense?, in 1971. He was also the first top player to successfully use the Grand Prix Attack against the Sicilian Defense (1.e4 c5 2.f4), spurring a sudden and sustained gain in its popularity. In the mid-1960s, he showed surprising faith in Alekhines Defense (1.e4 Nf6) and even employed it on important occasions. He played the rare Scandanavian Defense 1.e4 d5 to defeat World Champion Anatoly Karpov in 1979, sparking renewed interest in that variation. A favourite line in the Caro-Kann (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6) is co-named for him and David Bronstein; the idea is to accept a weakness to the Black pawn structure in exchange for an unbalancing of the position and retaining the bishop pair. ▀

6

Kleyton Lima, Tournament Director, Coach, and Player for the Espaço Xadrez

Total/Corinthians in São Paulo, Brazil.

GM Robert Hungaski (2528) - Kleyton Alcântara Lima

King’s Indian [E73]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0–0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 After two years of study I found this line and played it against the strong GM Robert Hungaski. 7...a5 (7...Nbd7 the idea was to quickly play Nc5 without wasting time with a5 so that white would

have to protect e4). 8.g4 Nbd7 (8...Na6 is the main line) 9.g5 Ne8 10.Nf3 Nc5 11.Nd2 11...f5 (11...Bh3! prevents the h-pawn advance but I did not see that during the game so my opponent took advantage of my imprecision to quickly play h4). 12.h4 f4 13.Bxc5 dxc5 14.Bg4 Nd6 15.Bxc8 (15.Qf3 Leandro

Perdomo 1–0 Dawton Lemos [Floripa Chess Open 2016]) 15...Qxc8 16.f3 Rd8 17.a4 Bf8!? The plan is to move the knight to g7 and the bishop to d6. 18.Qe2 Ne8 19.Qg2 Ng7 20.Qg4 Rd7 21.Ra3 Qe8 22.Rb3 b6 23.Nf1 Nh5 24.Nh2 Rf7 25.Qg1? (25.Qe6! giving g4 to the knight! 25...Bg7 26.Qxe8+ Rxe8 27.d6 giving d5 to the knight! 27...Re6 28.dxc7 Rxc7 29.Ng4 Rd7 30.Nd5+– white has decisive advantage.

25...Bg7?? Lost opportunity to equalize. (Best is é 25...Ng3 and after 26.Ng4 Nxh1 27.Qxh1 Kh8, protecting the king from attacks such as Nf6+ 28.Kd2 Bg7 29.Ra3 Rd7 30.Kc2 Rb8 31.Ra1 c6=. Despite the position black cannot activate the rooks. 26.Ng4 Rd7 27.Rh2 Rb8 28.Rd2 c6? (An unnecessary move that hugely increase white’s advantage. (28...Ng3 makes black better but not enough to gain the lead) 29.Ra3 Rd6 30.Qg2 (30.dxc6 Rxd2 31.Kxd2 Rd8+ 32.Nd5 Qxc6+–) Material is equal but white has a more harmonic pieces position.

30...Rbd8 From now on, low on time, I was unable to stop GM Hungaski from winning without much effort. 31.b3 Qe7 32.Raa2 h6 33.dxc6 hxg5 34.Nd5 Qe8 35.c7 R8d7 36.hxg5 Re6 37.Qh3 Kf7 38.Nh6+ Kf8 39.c8Q 1–0 ▀

7

FROM THE BATTLEFIELD

Melih Ozbek, Vice-President, Pittsburgh Chess Club

I’ve been playing in PCC championships since I moved to Pittsburgh. It’s the most prestigious tournament to win, and usually the most challenging of all. In 2010, the first year I played, I actually came very close, with a half point lead going into the last round, only to lose the last game and the championship title. Just a couple of years ago, I shared first place with Kevin, who’s been playing excellent chess recently. But this time, I was hoping for clear first place. Having done a 6-0 run in the last tournament, I was feeling in tip top shape for the crown!

In the first round of the tournament, I met my friend Alex Sax. His knowledge of the game is significantly above his rating, and he can challenge anyone on a good day. After a few mutual inaccuracies in the opening, I won a piece in tactical complications, which decided the game shortly after. Next five rounds, I played four experts and a master. +3 =2 proved just enough to clinch the title, although it was far from easy. The second round, I was paired against Joe Winwood. After a slow, manuevering middlegame, I lost my edge from the opening and looked like I was losing control. We exchanged queens, where I was clearly playing for two results. I assessed the position as much better for me, and much easier to play, but I couldn’t decide if I was winning. Kevin, who was watching on and off, thought my advantage was decisive. He was right – the engine gives about +2 here (see diagram 1, below).

Black’s bad bishop and the backward d6 pawn spell doom, sooner or later. I improved my pieces and increased my advantage gradually: 1..Ra8 2.Bb3 Nc6 3.Rc7 Nd8 3.Nc4 Ra6 4.Bd2 Re8 5.Ne3 Bf8 6.Bc4 Ra3 7.Rb8 In this critical position (diagram 2, right), having played 7.Rb8, and having pressed the clock, I immediately saw his resource 7..Ne6. Did I let him back in the game? My position was so good that there had to be a knockout blow. After a few minutes

of thought, he confidently made this move and got up. I was in severe time pressure as usual, but I found the decisive continuation, sacrificing the exchange to get a winning position: 8.fxe6! Rxb8 9. Rxf7 +- d5 10.exd5 Rb2 11. Rxf6 Rxd2 12.e7! Ra1+ 13.Nf1 1-0. A possible finish could be 13..Bxe7 14.d6+ Kg7 15.dxe7 Ra8 16. Rf7+ and 17.Rf8, queening. Kevin played the opening very well, and it's a little embarrassing that I had a completely lost game by the tenth move! Disgusted with my position, I hung on just by the skin of my teeth, when Kevin decided on a more positional approach to decide the game. Somehow it became double edged, when all three results were possible. Being worse or outright lost for almost the entire game, I now had a chance, with a knight sacrifice on f4 (see diagram 3, below).

Of course the sacrifice is completely winning. The game continued 1..Nf4! 2.gxf4 gxf4+ 3.Kf3 Rh8 4.Rxe5 Rh3+ 5.Kxf4. Having used up my entire remaining time to see all the way to the end, I let my clock run down to 1 second (!). We do have the 5 second delay, but can you find the mate in 6 seconds here? (diagram 4, right)

8

Well, I hallucinated. I thought this was mating: 5..Qf6+?? 6.Rf5 Qh4+ 7.Ke5 (this was what I missed), so I took the perpetual with 7..Qe7+ 8.Kf4 Qh4+ etc. Immediately after the game, Kevin showed me the winning line: 5..f6! 6.Re7+ Kf8 and the mate would be unstoppable. Since he missed several wins earlier in the game, I thought a draw was a fair result. Next two rounds, I beat Narkeeran Narasimhan and Kurt Wallnau in fairly uneventful games. Things were pretty quiet, until I managed to make something out of nothing, to get two wins in a row. Going into the climactic last round, I found myself tied with Kevin at 4.5 / 5 each. He was playing Narkeeran in the last round, who had 3.5. My opponent was Ed this time, who also had 3.5, within striking distance. Would I be able

to deal with the pressure and take home the title? Things didn’t exactly go as planned. I half sacrificed, half blundered a pawn against Ed for an attack, to soon discover that it was completely unsound. Having to go into an ending with dwindling winning chances, the situation was looking grim, when I thought Kevin had a big, possibly decisive edge over Narkeeran. What turned the tables was Narkeeran’s amazing endgame play, when he suddenly obtained a winning position with a knight sacrifice for a few pawns. Now, all I had to do was to get a draw for clear first. I kept playing for the win, as there weren’t any real risks involved. Ed played well to keep me at bay, eventually sacrificing his knight to transition into a completely drawn R+N vs. R ending. I played on for a miracle, as anything was possible, when I had only 8 seconds remaining, to Ed’s 3. We moved back and forth without making any headway, and just when I was about to offer a draw, I blundered my rook! We agreed to a draw right away, which made me PCC champion. What a funny way to end a tournament, you give away a rook but you still win the whole thing. So this is how it happened: +4 =2, with a performance rating of 2327. I am now on a 14 game unbeaten streak at PCC, with only 22 points separating me from the master title. It’s been a magical ride so far this year. The next step is Pittsburgh Open, looking forward to it! ▀ THE INSANE CORNER, Edition 7, by John Barroso Botvinnik vs. Capablanca, 1-0, Avro, 1938. Botvinnik was a master of tactics. His tactics are used in every Russian school as they are intricate and hard to see. White to move.

What did Botvinnik move?

We can see the white’s move (solution to the diagram on the left) and we can see how black responded as well. NOW: what was Botvinnik’s next move?. White to move. *hint: there is no quick checkmate, it is just “getting an advantage”.

Solutions appear on the last few pages of this edition. ▀

9

Chess is 99% Tactics

Yisrael Isaacson, En Passant columnist.

Find the best winning line. Some positions may have a number of winning lines but the answers given are those that the chess engine Houdini 4 evaluates as best and will have a valuation at least 2 – 3 points higher than the next best.

Black to move.

Timman vs Piket Wijk aan Zee 2000 White to move .

Pruijssers vs Bok Hoogevens 2007 White to move.

Stridde vs Brethauer Bad Zwesten 1998

White to move.

Ebralidze vs Lubensky Tbilisi 1949 White to move

Banika vs Vlassis Kavala 1996 White to move

Degtiarev vs Istratescu Switzerland 2015

SOLUTIONS #1 -299 1... Nxb3+ 2. Kb1 (If 2 ab then 2…… Qa3+ and mate on b2 follows) Nd4+ 3. Kc1 Qb2+ 4. Kd1 Qa1+ 5. Nb1 Qb1# #2 +8.32 1. Rxf6 Qxf6 2. Nf5+ Qxf5 3. exf5 Be7 4. Qg3 Bf6 5. Be4 Red8 6. h4 Rh8 7. Rf1 Rcd8 8. Qf2 Rd6 9. Qc5 Rhd8 10. Kg3 Be7 11. Qxc4 #3 +4.15 1. Nxe5 Bxe5 (if 1….. Be2 then 2. Qa4+ followed by Nd7+, and Na8 wins material) 2. Bxg4 h5 3. Be2 h4 4. Be3 Kf8 5. Qd2 Nf6 6. f3 a6 7. Kf2 Qc7 8.Bd3 Rc8 9. Rae1 Nd7 10. Ne4 h3 11. g3 Rh5 12. f4 Bg7 13. Be2 #4 +299 1. Rxh7+ Rxh7 2. Rxh7+ Kh7 3. Qh1+ Kg7 4. f6+ Kf8 (if 4……Kf6 5. Nd7+ forking the king and queen) 5. Qh7 Bh3+ 6. Kh1 Qc7 #5 +5.14 Black just played Ne4 forking the queen and rook, looks good but surprise surprise 1. Nxf7+ Rxf7 2. Qxg7+ Rxg7 3. Rxd7 Qg8 4. Bxg7+ Qxg7 5. Rxg7 Kg7 6. Rd7+ Kh8 7. Rxb7 Nc3 8. Bf3 Nxa2 9. Rd7 Re8 10. Rxa7 Nc3 11. Rd7 Rf8 12. Rd3 Na2 13.Rd6 Rb8 14. g3 b5 15. Rd5 bxc4 16. bxc4 Rc8 17. Rd7 Re8 18. Kg2 Nc3 19. Rc7 #6 +299.0 1. Bb3 (seemingly an easily parried attack on the rook. Unfortunately any move by the rook to save itself makes the real venom behind 1. Bb3 evident, as after 2. Rd6+ the black king cannot get to c4 and after the forced 2…… Ke4 it is mate after 3. Bc2#) Kd2 2. a7 Rbd8 3. Bxg8 c2 4. Bd5 b5 5. Rxc2+ Kc2 6. a8=Q Rxa8 7. Bxa8 f3 8. gxf3 Kc3 9. Ke3 Kc4 10. d8=Q Kb4 11. Qb6 Ka3 12. Qxb5 Ka2 13. Kd3 Ka1 14. Kc2 Ka2 15. Qa6#

10

Pittsburgh Chess Club Fundraiser At Rivers Casino, Thursday, July 25, 2019

Join us for an evening of food, chess, and fun at Rivers Casino

Dinner at the Grandview Buffet (second floor), starting at 6 PM Special section at the Grandview Buffet for our group Chess Lecture and activities from 8 PM to 10 PM at the Conference Room

holding about 17 people. (Lecturer and topic to be decided). Free parking at the Casino.

Cost of ticket $50.00 per person. One half of ticket price goes to the

Pittsburgh Chess Club.

Details on where and how to purchase tickets will be determined by mid-June and will be posted on the PCC’s website and social media sites.

Note: All guests must be age 21or over.

THE INSANE CORNER SOLUTION (problem presented on page 8): *below are the game continuation (Botvinnik is white):

31.Nh5+ gxh5. 32.Qg5+ Kf8 33.Qxf6+ Kg8 34.e7 Qc1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4+ 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+ 40.g4 Qe1+ 41.Kh5 and Capablanca resigned.

This was considered one of Botvinnik’s brilliancies.

11

Game analysis By Peter Jansen, Pittsburgh Chess Club Member. Jeff Schreiber (1917) – Joe Winwood (2076) 20th Byland Memorial (6) Pittsburgh Chess Club, 16 April 2019. ½ - ½ After a prolonged health struggle, it was great to see Jeff Schreiber play the last few Tuesday night tournaments in a better shape than he had been for quite some time. In fact, during the following deciding game from the last round, it looked very much like he would end up in first place! After a little tactical dance in the early middlegame, Jeff took advantage of an inaccuracy by Joe to launch a powerful and very successful, but complex and far from commonplace sacrificial attack against black’s King. This cost much time on the clock, however, and when Jeff realized he had just a few minutes left against Winwood’s hour, he simplified to a pawn-up position which left him too little to work with… 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Qe7

One of the main lines (the so-called Nimzowitsch variation) of the Bogo-Indian defense. But both players step away from the well-trodden paths immediately. 5.Nc3 c5?! Definitely leaving book as played by top GMs (who go for 5. … b6 or 5. … O-O in this line). 6.e3 O-O 7.Bd3 cxd4 8.exd4 d5 9.O-O dxc4 10.Bxc4 h6?! In a game Nascimento – Taha at the 1984 Olympiad, black won after 10. … a6. However, probably better is 10. … b6(N), with standard play against the isolated queen pawn (IQP) and an approximately equal position. Joe’s 10. … h6 seems to waste a tempo with respect to this plan, while providing white with a target! *diagram on column to the right.

11.a3 Qc7!? Joe tries to complicate the position (normal would be 11. … Bxc3) 12.Rc1!? and Jeff complicates right back! (simplest 12. Bd3, while 12. axb4!? is actually not bad either). 12. … Bxc3 (12. … Qxc4? 13. Ne4!) 13.Rxc3 Nc6 Perhaps 13. … Ne4 was better -- but if so, White could have prevented it with 13. Bd3!?. 14.Re1 Qd8 15.Ne5!

Ne7? Jeff makes a provocative, but thematic sacrifice of the IQP. It would have been best for black to accept it now rather than on the next move, as after the queen sacrifice with 15. … Qxd4 (Nxd4?? 16. Rd3! pins and wins the N) 16. Rd3 Qxe5! 17. Rxe5 Nxe5 it isn’t all that easy for white to prove his advantage! But now Jeff launches an absolutely spectacular and amazing attack on Joe’s king! 16.Qc1! Qxd4?! 17.Rd3! Qb6 The queen sac is of course no longer possible. The “art of attack” – White to play and win!

12

Continued from previous page…

18.Bxh6!! Nf5 Accepting (18. … gxh6 19. Qxh6) is suicide. Maybe 18. … Ne8 held out longer. 19.Bxg7!! Blow after blow! 19. … Nxg7 20.Qh6! Nfh5 21.Rh3! f6! Winwood the fighter wakes up! 22.Ng6! Bd7!?

A cunning defensive move. While it doesn’t stop white’s main threats, it prepares an escape route for black’s king in some lines, and lets Ra8 participate. In particular, Rf8 is now defended, which means that black suddenly has the hidden threat of 23. … Qa5! (attacking Re1 and defending h5) possibly followed by 24. … Qg5! = White is to move, and can win in several ways -- assuming he has a clear head and enough time. Unfortunately, having just looked at the clock, Jeff had neither! Otherwise a line such as 23. Be2! Qa5 24. Rd1! Bc6 25. Bxh5, with mating threats costing more material, would certainly have been well within his reach… 23.Nxf8?! This simplification is tempting – it still looks completely winning for white! But maybe he missed black’s 25th move? 23. … Rxf8 24.Rxh5 Nxh5 25.Qxh5

Indeed, what can black do about the quick mate with 26. Qg6+ followed by 27. Re4 ? 25. … Rf7!! That! (but nothing else, e.g., 25. … Kg7? 26. Bd3! f5 27. Qg5+ Kf7 28. Be2! +- ) 26.Qg6+ Kf8!

White’s attack seems to have run out of steam (and pieces) and the b-pawn is hanging. Seconds are quickly ticking away. Unsurprisingly (and probably wisely) Jeff contented himself with a draw. With more time, he might have kept pressing with 27. h4(!) (to activate the rook, and start that pawn out on its journey)! 27.b4?! Qd4! 28.Qc2 Rg7 1/2-1/2. Perhaps too bad of the missed win, but kudos to Jeff for a superb attack (and to Joe for a remarkable defense and a deserved tournament victory)! In the mean time, we were sorry to learn that Jeff has started his next real-life battle. We wish him the strength and courage to pull off at least a draw in that one too! -- Peter Jansen ▀

GOLDEN TRIANGLE RESULTS: HELD ON APRIL 20TH, 2019.

SwissSys Standings. Golden Triangle: Championship

# Name Rtng Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Tot Prize 1 NABIL FELIACHI 2204 W8 (b) W5 (w) W2 (b) W3 (w) 4.0 $200/Upset 2 ALEXANDER HEIMANN 2413 W6 (w) W4 (b) L1 (w) W7 (b) 3.0 $50 3 MICHAEL OPASKA 2045 H--- (-) W7 (w) W6 (b) L1 (b) 2.5 $25 4 JEFFREY SCHRAGIN 1820 B--- (-) L2 (w) W5 (b) D6 (w) 2.5 $25 5 GUIRGUISS TADROS unr. W7 (b) L1 (b) L4 (w) W8 (b) 2.0 6 JOSEPH WI WINWOOD 2046 L2 (b) W8 (w) L3 (w) D4 (b) 1.5 7 FRANKLIN MIN CHEN 2129 L5 (w) L3 (b) W8 (w) L2 (w) 1.0 8 THOMAS SWAYZE unr. L1 (w) L6 (b) L7 (b) L5 (w) 0.0 SwissSys Standings. Golden Triangle: Reserve # Name Rtng Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Tot Prize 1 KEBISH PIUS 1517 W8 (b) W7 (w) W4 (w) W3 (b) 4.0 $160 2 FINN ERIK OVERLIE 1644 W5 (b) D3 (w) D7 (b) W4 (w) 3.0 $40 3 JAMES ZE CARR 1405 W9 (w) D2 (b) W8 (w) L1 (w) 2.5 $20 4 JORD LEDESMA LORA 874 B--- (-) W6 (w) L1 (b) L2 (b) 2.0 Upset 5 BENJAMIN LIN 1304 L2 (w) L8 (b) B--- (-) W7 (b) 2.0 6 GREGORY T THOMAS 1566 L7 (w) L4 (b) W9 (b) W8 (w) 2.0 7 JASON LIU 1300 W6 (b) L1 (b) D2 (w) L5 (w) 1.5 8 JOHN W MILLER 1132 L1 (w) W5 (w) L3 (b) L6 (b) 1.0 9 MICHAEL BASHUR JR 1095 L3 (b) B--- (-) L6 (w) U--- (-) 1.0

SwissSys Standings.

20th William M. Byland Memorial: Byland: ENDED APRIL 16TH, 2019.

# Name Rtng Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Rd 6 Tot Prize 1 Joseph W Winwood 2036 W14 (w) W3 (b) W9 (w) W15 (b) D4 (w) D5 (b) 5.0 143.00 2 Jeffrey Schragin 1848 W19 (w) W4 (b) D15 (w) D5 (b) D3 (w) W6 (b) 4.5 88.50/Upset1 3 Ronald B Standley 1965 W17 (b) L1 (w) W14 (b) W8 (w) D2 (b) W9 (w) 4.5 88.50 4 Edward T Dean 2061 W7 (b) L2 (w) W10 (b) W11 (w) D1 (b) H--- (-) 4.0 5 Jeffrey Schreiber 1903 W20 (b) H--- (-) W6 (w) D2 (w) D9 (b) D1 (w) 4.0 6 Mark Jeromin 1629 H--- (-) W10 (w) L5 (b) W7 (w) W11 (b) L2 (w) 3.5 29.50 7 Paul Cantalupo 1591 L4 (w) W18 (b) W12 (w) L6 (b) W17 (w) D10 (b) 3.5 42.00 8 Timothy J Lambert 1666 W21 (b) L9 (w) W19 (b) L3 (b) H--- (-) W13 (w) 3.5 29.50 9 Narkeeran Narasimhan 2021 W16 (w) W8 (b) L1 (b) H--- (-) D5 (w) L3 (b) 3.0 10 Patrick Needham 1568 W12 (w) L6 (b) L4 (w) D13 (b) W16 (b) D7 (w) 3.0 11 Finn Erik Overlie 1677 W18 (w) L15 (b) W16 (w) L4 (b) L6 (w) W17 (b) 3.0 12 Jordhy Ledesma Lora unr. L10 (b) W17 (w) L7 (b) W14 (w) L13 (w) W18 (b) 3.0 30.00 13 Steven J O'Connor 1515 L15 (w) L19 (b) W18 (w) D10 (w) W12 (b) L8 (b) 2.5 14 Alexander Sax 1542 L1 (b) W20 (w) L3 (w) L12 (b) H--- (-) W19 (b) 2.5 15 Kurt C Wallnau 2031 W13 (b) W11 (w) D2 (b) L1 (w) U--- (-) U--- (-) 2.5 16 Yisrael Isaacson 1528 L9 (b) W21 (w) L11 (b) H--- (-) L10 (w) W20 (b) 2.5 17 Ethan Markowski 1489 L3 (w) L12 (b) W20 (w) B--- (-) L7 (b) L11 (w) 2.0 18 Nathan Hausler 1369 L11 (b) L7 (w) L13 (b) W21 (w) W20 (b) L12 (w) 2.0 19 Daniel Kolich 1338 L2 (b) W13 (w) L8 (w) U--- (-) W21 (b) L14 (w) 2.0 20 Bryant Sims 1333 L5 (w) L14 (b) L17 (b) B--- (-) L18 (w) L16 (w) 1.0 21 Barbara A Winwood 417 L8 (w) L16 (b) B--- (-) L18 (b) L19 (w) U--- (-) 1.0

Textbook Finish!

by Carsten Hansen, Danish FIDE Master, regular En Passant contributor.

Occasionally in books on chess tactics you see a pattern that have you dreaming of putting that in the face of an unsuspecting opponent but usually you never have the chance to play it, except perhaps in the odd blitz game or online. This time around, we will see one of those patterns that have had me dreaming since I was a young boy but which I have never had the opportunity to play myself.

V.Malakhov (2660) – I.Efimov (2439) French Team ch (Brest) 2019 1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 d5 3.e3 c6 4.b3 Nf6 5.Bb2 Nbd7 From the Reti, we have now arrived in the Semi-Slav. The line as such is nothing special for White, but it allows both sides to develop their pieces and get ready for battle. 6.d4 b6 The main line is 6...Bd6 but also 6...Ne4, 6...Bb4 and 6...Be7 are reasonable options and have been played many times by strong players. 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.0–0 Be7 9.Nc3 Rc8 The main line is 9...0–0 10.Qe2 c5 which has been tested several hundred times and offers both sides their share to the chances although I prefer White after 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Ne5 Bd6 13.f4 with some initiative for White. 10.Qe2 Qc7 11.Rad1 0–0

[diagram 1] 12.e4 After 12.Rfe1 g6 13.e4 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Bf6 16.b4 Bg7 17.d5 cxd5 18.cxd5 exd5 19.Bxd5 , a draw was agreed upon, ½–½, in Gustafsson-Bischoff, Austrian Team ch 2006. 12...dxe4 13.Nxe4 Rfd8? [Diagram 2, on the right ►] This looks normal but is, in fact, a quite serious mistake as it allows White's mobilization on the kingside to gain momentum. Another, and better, option is to get rid of some additional pieces with 13...Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Nf6 (the

ugly 14...g6 , intending ...Bf6, may be a better option) 15.Qh4 h6 16.Ne5 and White has some initiative, even if Black objectively should be okay. 14.Neg5! Rf8 15.Bb1!? The magnitude of Black's problems are shown in the fact that White could seriously consider the direct 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Qxe6+ Rf7 17.Ng5 with very good chances for White. The text move is a little slower initially, but this will not be for long... 15...Bd6 16.g3 Maybe too patient, particularly since 16.Qd3 g6 17.Qc3 looks great for White. 16...g6 Or 16...h6 17.c5! hxg5 (if 17...bxc5 then 18.dxc5 Bxc5 19.Qc2 with a dangerous attack for White) 18.cxd6 Qxd6 19.Nxg5 and White has a small advantage but Black is still in the fight. 17.Ne5 Rce8 18.h4 c5 [diagram 3]

19.Nxd7! Why exchange this knight? The point soon becomes clear! 19...Nxd7 20.d5 The only way to open for the two bishops. After 20.dxc5 , Black has 20...Bxg3 21.Be4 (of course not 21.fxg3?? Qxg3+) 21...Bh2+ 22.Kg2 Bxe4+ 23.Nxe4 f5 with chances to both sides. 20...exd5?? [diagram 4, on the right ►] I can't quite decide whether Black overlooked White's next move or if he let him finish the game in beautiful style. The alternatives were 20...Re7 21.dxe6 Bxg3 22.Be4 Bh2+ 23.Kg2 Bxe4+ 24.Qxe4 fxe6 25.Nxe6 (25.Rxd7 Qxd7 26.Kxh2 is also clearly better for White) 25...Qb8 26.Qd5

and Black is in serious trouble or; 20...e5 21.h5 Nf6 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Rde1 and while not yet lost for Black, his position is certainly very unpleasant. 21.Qh5!! Textbook finish. Black can't stop mate in a few moves. 1–0 ▀