Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in davidmoodychess' LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Sunday, February 3rd, 2008
3:12 pm	An offhand game Just after Christmas, I suffered a fall and broke my right wrist. As a result, I've had to do most everything left-handed since. It seems to be affecting my chess, as this recent e-mail game shows: 1.b4 A logical move at this point. When better to play it than on move 1, when it comes b4 any other move? 1...c5 And this move is not a gambit. Black has to work very hard to turn it into one. 2.bxc5 Nc6 For instance, Black could play 2...Qa5 and be almost assured of getting the pawn back. Indeed, he could play ...Qa5 just about any time during the game and get a better position than he actually achieves. 3.d4 g6 4.e3 I made this move on the right half of the board automatically, and suffered a great deal of pain as a result. You'd better believe I didn't make that mistake again. 4...e5 5.d5 Nb4 6.d6 Bg7 7.Bb2 a6 White is certainly following no known principles in this game: having started with six pawn moves and one bishop move, he now makes four consecutive moves with the same knight. Fortunately, Black is following no principles at all, known or unknown, so White's strategy is sufficient to win. 8.Nd2 b6 9.Nc4 bxc5 10.Nxe5 Bb7 11.Nc6! And that clinches matters: Black's queen is attacked, and any capture of the knight allows 12.Bxg7 snagging the rook in the corner as well. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Sunday, January 28th, 2007
10:11 am	Chess for no good reason, part 40 Four Simple Rules for Snatching My QNP with Your Queen 1. Calculate carefully to be sure the queen can escape. 2. Double check your calculations. 3. Triple check your calculations. 4. DON'T DO IT ANYWAYS! To which one is tempted to add a fifth: Make sure you aren't hanging material elsewhere. David Moody (1576) - Nathan Goldberg (1576) [B98] 2nd Quick Quad Fairfax, Va. (2), 18.08.1976 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Bc4 I can only find this move in several games between non-Masters in my Michigan games database. I suspect that is because it allows the fork trick 8...Nxe4 at a favorable time for Black. Oddly enough, only one player seems to have found that move: David Murray (1943) vs. Jacob Swartz (1546) (East Detroit Open, 1989) continued 8...Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxe4 d5 11.Bb5+!? axb5 12.Nxb5 Qb4+! (after 12...dxe4? 13.Nd6+ is fine for White) 13.Nec3 0-0, and Black had a good game although the 400 rating points eventually told. I make this unusually long comment about the opening simply because there's not much else to day about this game. 8...Nc6 9.0-0?? 0-0? 9...Qb6 would have won a piece. Both sides see the idea too late, whereupon White prevents it and Black fixates on it. 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.e5 Qb6+ 12.Kh1 dxe5 13.fxe5 Qxb2?? The queen is in no particular danger, but stuff is hanging elsewhere. 14.exf6 gxf6 15.Bh6 Black saw too late that 14...Qxc3 15.fxe7 Qxc5 16.exf8Q+ was coming. Now he has to give up a rook to avoid the worst, which ensues when he tries to cut his losses to the exchange. 15...Qxc3 16.Qg4+ 1-0 Not a game worthy of the struggle for first place in the tournament! Hopefully, we were both a bit nervous. (Comment on this)
Monday, January 22nd, 2007
9:22 pm	Chess for no good reason, part 39 Here's a game that's famous, all right, but for an unusual reason: Frank Marshal - Amos Burn [D55/06] Paris, 1900 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.h4 g6 11.h5 Re8 12.hxg6 hxg6 13.Qc2 Nd7 14.Bxg6 fxg6 15.Qxg6+ Bg7 16.Ng5 Qf6 17.Rh8+ 1-0 Very bright and attractive play by Marshall. However, the game is most famous for the notes Marshall wrote for it in his autobiography, "My Fifty Years of Chess". Almost all of his notes dealt with Burn's difficulties in getting his pipe lit. By the time Burn was puffing away, Marshall had played 17.Rh8+ and it was all over. Marshall concluded: "Poor Burn, I think I swindled him out of that one. If he could only have gotten his pipe going, it might have made all the difference. He took it good-naturedly and we shook hands. Then his pipe went out." After reading that story, you can be sure I would remember the combination if the opportunity ever arose! Royal Franklin (1514) - David Moody (1576) [D00] 2nd Quick Quad Fairfax, Va. (1), 18.08.1976 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Bf5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 c6 5.Nf3 Bb4 I can't find any other games with this move, but I don't know why. After all, the Slav is considered fine for Black, as is the Nimzo-Indian. Why not blend them? 6.Bd2 Nf6 7.a3 Ba5 8.Be2 Nbd7 9.0-0 Qe7 10.Nh4 Bc7 With White having already planted his crops on the kingside, maybe I should have played 10...Bg6 to get the open h-file if White takes the bishop. As it happens, I do get the file open eventually, but it takes a lot of trouble. 11.Nxf5 exf5 12.c5 Relieving the Nf6 of guard duty, turning it into a frisky little critter. 11...h5 13.Bf3 I guess White was already planning to play g3 and Bg2, but pushing pawns on the kingside here is playing with fire. 13...Ng4 14.g3 0-0-0 15.b4 Optimistic. If Black just won't do anything for the next half-dozen move, White might be able to light some sparks on the queenside. 15...Nxh2!? Definitely playing with matches. Who will get burned is uncertain at this point. 16.Kxh2 h4 17.Kg2 hxg3 18.fxg3 Rh2+?! A conflagration strikes, but Black is running low on wood for the fire. 19.Kxh2 Qh4+ 20.Kg1 Qxg3+ 21.Bg2 Rh8 22.Rf3?? Rh1+ 0-1 Poor Franklin. I think I swindled him out of that one. If he had just found 22.Rf4!, it might have made all the difference. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Friday, January 19th, 2007
7:47 pm	Chess for no good reason, part 38 A little preparation is a dangerous thing I've never had a lot of luck preparing openings. Either my opponent avoids the line completely, or else (even worse!) he plays into it and shows exactly what all my midnight oil was really worth. In the early days of the 1976 U.S. Open, I was in a restaurant and apparently looking like a chess player because the waitress said to me, "We had a chess book left here a couple of months ago. Would you like to take it?" I've never been one to look a free chess book in the mouth, particularly when I saw that it was Winning Chess Traps by Irving Chernev. The book's physical condition showed why it had been abandoned, but I didn't mind; I had a new chess Bible. I flipped through it the next couple days, renewing acquaintance with some old favorites and meeting some new ones. A particularly striking example was #260, the famous Monticelli Trap in the Queen's Indian, which goes something like this: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 0-0 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qc2 Nxc3 10.Ng5! And the double threat of Qxh7# and Bxb7 ensures that White will win the exchange. Very neat! Perhaps I would not have been so excited had I known that Capablanca fell into this trap during a match with Euwe, and still managed to draw the game. And then the next time he had Black in the match, Capa contemptuously steered the game right back into the same line, and drew again. But I was an optimist in those days. So, when I sat down at the board and played 1.d4 on a sudden impulse, I got excited when the Queen's Indian Defense appeared. David Moody (1576) - Matthew Grinberg (1894) [E18] U.S. Open Fairfax, Va. (3), 17.08.1976 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2 Nxc3 9.Ng5 I couldn't remember if these were the exact moves from #260, but it sure looked like the same position. So I sprung the trap, trying my best not to look smug. 10...Nxe2+ An unfortunate development. 11.Qe2 releases the mate threat, and Black wins a piece with 11...Bxg2 and 12...Bxg5. And the alternative doesn't help. 10.Kh1 Bxg2+ 0-1 After which it took only a couple of seconds to calculate 11.Kxg2 Bxg5 winning a piece, resign the game, and swear off 1.d4 forever. Back in my room I quickly grabbed the book and looked for #260. Where had I gone wrong? And along the way, I noticed #265. It was the exact trap that I had fallen into. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, January 15th, 2007
7:22 pm	The Rogo Awards You may be familiar with this game: Frank J. Marshall -- Hyman Rogosin New York, 1940 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 Nc6 4.axb4 Nf6 5.b5 Nd4 6.c3 Ne6 7.e5 Nd5 8.c4 Ndf4 9.g3 Ng6 10.f4 Ngxf4 11.gxf4 Nxf4 12.d4 Ng6 13.h4 e6 14.h5 Bb4+ 15.Bd2 Bxd2+ 16.Nxd2 Ne7 17.Ne4 Nf5 18.h6 g6 19.Nf6+ Kf8 20.Nf3 d6 21.Ng5 dxe5 22.dxe5 Qxd1+ 23.Rxd1 Ke7 24.Rh3 b6 25.Bg2 Rb8 26.Ngxh7 1-0 While this game is most famous for Marshall's 14 straight pawn moves in the opening, Black's play with his knights is also memorable. I actually got the chance to meet Mr. Rogosin at the 1983 U.S. Open in Pasadena. As soon as he mentioned his last name, a light went off in my head. "Are you...?" I began. "Yes", he interrupted me with a smile, "I'm the Horrible Example." In honor of a nice guy and a good sport, I'm like to institute the Rogo Awards for similarly incoherent knight play. Here's an example from Master play: Julian Hodgson -- David Gluckman Lloyd's Bank Masters, 1992 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6 3.e4 Be7 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxe7 Nxc3 6.Bxd8 Nxd1 7.Bxc7 Nxb2 8.Bd6 Na4 9.c4 Nc6 10.Nf3 Ne7 11.Bd3 Nb2 12.Be2 Nf5 13.Ba3 Na4 14.Kd2 Nb6 15.Rab1 f6 16.g4 Ne7 17.Bd6 Nc6 18.Rb5 Nd8 19.Ra5 h5 20.Rg1 Nc6 21.Ra3 hxg4 22.Rxg4 Kf7 23.Bc7 Nxc4+ Suicidal despair at first glance, but the only way to save the knight was to give up the exchange by 23...Rb8, which would be a most dismal fate for a piece that's been waiting patiently all this time. Besides, by now Black probably figured the knights weren't worth saving anyway. OK, let's review Black's piece movement over the first 23 moves: Pawns: 4 moves King: 1 move Bishops: 1 move Knights: 17 moves That's ten moves for the g8-knight (at least, I think it's the g8-knight) and seven for the b8-knight. Yes, with no further ado, break out a Rogo! By the way, here's the gory finish. 24.Bxc4 d5 25.Bb3 b5 26.Rg1 a5 27.Bc2 g5 28.Bd6 Bd7 29.h4 b4 30.Re3 a4 31.hxg5 Na5 32.Bd3 b3 33.gxf6 1-0 (Comment on this)
Thursday, January 11th, 2007
10:29 pm	Chess for no good reason, part 37 Good grief, has it really been seven months since I posted on this theme? Time flies when I'm having fun. But first an answer to a comment on the last post: "But, I'm puzzled...I think some terms need to be defined. What makes 17.Bd2 a "swindle" and not a "cheapo" or a simply a "threat"? These are deep waters, totally unplumbed by either Samuel Johnson or Noah Webster, so I think we're on our own. The classic work on this theme is considered to be (at least by all right-thinking persons, such as myself), "Chess Traps, Pitfalls and Swindles", by I.A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld. They use the term "swindle" in a very specialized sense as an attempt to salvage a lost position or win a drawn one. Then there's Frank James Marshall (no relation to Robert James Fischer or William James Lombardy), who wrote an earlier book called "Chess Swindles." He seemed to have a more inclusive sense of the term as most any attempt to bamboozle an opponent, regardless of the merits of the position. Personally, I'm more in the Marshall camp. However, since I'm generally dead busted somewhere during most of my games, the difference is rather moot. Swindles can involve threats, but more often than not the threat is a dormant can of worms that the victim opens. A good threat is more of what H&R call a "pitfall"; in order to avoid the threat, the opponent must make a concession elsewhere. The swindler makes threats for their own sake, often because there is nothing better to do. As for cheapos, I think of those as random tactical accidents, having little relevance to the game as a whole--unless they work, of course. I hope this doesn't answer too many questions, since that would cut back on the comments. But on to the game. In case you've forgotten (and I know I had), this is round two of a two-round Quick Quad, which meant that the winner would take home the $7.14 or whatever it was first prize, which represented real money back in 1976. It doesn't represent a swindle in the H&R sense, since White is never totally lost despite throwing away a winning position. (Yes, I think it was winning, since White was still OK even after hanging a rook.) But it's a true swindle in the Marshall sense, since Black is unable to deal with the complications that arise. David Moody (1576) - Kwei K. Chang (1516) [B75] 1st Quick Quad Fairfax, Va. (2), 17.08.1976 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f3 6.Be3 is more usual, but there doesn't seem to be a way for Black to exploit the text and he doesn't bother trying to find one. 6...Bg7 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Be2 8.Bc4 is normal of course. This passive move leaves the bishop with no prospects; indeed, it will be move 30 before it stirs again. 8...Bd7 9.Qd2 Nxd4 This doesn't look thematic; the normal idea would involve ...Rc8 and ...Na5-c4, and that seems fine here. 10.Bxd4 0-0 11.0-0-0 a6 12.h4 e5 Oh, lordy, this can't be good. Not only is the d-pawn sick unto death, the White bishop is forced back to its most dangerous square. 13.Be3 Ne8 14.Bh6 Be6 15.h5 g5 Keeping the h-file closed at all costs. 16.Bxg5 f6 17.Bh6 Rf7 18.Rdg1 Rc8 Just a little bit late. 19.g4 Qa5 20.g5 Bxh6 21.gxf6+ Keeping the queen in the attack. 21...Kh8 22.Qxh6 Nxf6 23.Rg6 Oooh! Actually, this move is only good because it gains time to double rooks on the g-file. Unfortunately, I forget that pins, unlike diamonds, are not forever. 23...Qd8 24.Rhg1 Qe7 25.Nd5 Bxd5 26.exd5 Ng8 Drat. Still, there seems some cheapo potential in the position, so White continues. 27.Qd2 hxg6 28.hxg6 Rf4 29.g7+ Kh7? And it doesn't take long for the fatal blunder! After 29...Qxg7!, Black gets two rooks for the queen and survives. 30.Bd3+ Redeeming his previous behavior by gaining time while clearing the way for White's queen to return to the kingside. 30...Kh6 31.Rg4 31.Qg2 is mate in five according to my computer, but I was playing for the win rather than for perfection. 31...Nf6 32.Qh2+ Nh5 33.Rg6+ Kh7 34.g8Q+ I seriously contemplated 34.g8B+. It would lead to mate in three moves instead of two, but Black seemed like a nice guy. Besides, I was too relieved to take any chances at all. 34...Rxg8 35.Qxh5# 1-0 (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, January 6th, 2007
11:30 pm	Waiting You want to know what really bugs me about playing chess? It's the waiting. After all, when you've got a style like mine, it is extremely nerve wracking to see whether your opponent falls for your swindle or not. And when you're playing correspondence ... well, let's just say there's a reason I don't have much hair anymore. David Moody - C. Stanley McMahon Correspondence, 1979 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.c3 dxc3 6.Qb3 Qf6 This is probably not the best of ideas, with the White knight just asking to leap into d5. I really can't say why he disdains ...Na5 for so long. 7.Nxc3 h6 Apparently more worried about 8.Bg5 instead of 8.Nd5. OK, let's put him out of his misery. 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.0-0 d6 10.Re1 Nge7 11.Nf6+ Undoubtedly unsound. My problem with correspondence is that I so often play the games like blitz. 11...gxf6 12.Bxf7+ Kf8 13.Bh5 d5 14.Bf4 Bd6 15.exd5 Na5 Avoiding 15...Bxf4 16.dxc6 threatening 17.Qf7# and 17.cxb7. 16.Qc3 Kg7 17.Bd2 And here is the swindle. I spent a full week sweating over whether he would see the threat or not. When the card came, I couldn't bear to look at it. I went to my room, lay down in bed with my eyes closed, lifted up the card and slowly opened my eyes. 17...b6?? Hallelujah! 18.Qxf6+! Kxf6 19.Bc3+ Kf5 20.g4+ Kf4 21.Bd2+ Kxf3 22.Re3+ Kf4 23.Re6+ Kf3 24.g5# 1-0 (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, January 4th, 2007
3:48 pm	A game from Larry Evans GM Larry Evans has played a lot of interesting games over the years, but this is surely one of his most intriguing: Larry Evans--H. Gordon 1.a3 h6 2.h3 a6 3.b4 g5 4.Bb2 Rh7 5.g4 Bg7 6.Bxg7 Rxg7 7.Rh2 Ra7 8.Bg2 b5 9.Ra2 Bb7 10.Bxb7 Rxb7 11.Nf3 Nf6 12.Nc3 Nc6 13.Qa1 Qa8 ½-½ Not quite his usual style. Perhaps the circumstances need to be clarified. The game is from the 1946 US Open, when Evans was a promising 14-year-old. The tournament was in two parts that year. First, the 58 entries played an eight round Swiss System. Afterwards, the players were lined up in order and separated into 8-10 player round robin finals sections. As a result, most played 17 games in 13 days. Evans actually qualified for the third Finals section, but the withdrawals of George Koltanowski and Arpad Elo promoted him to the second section. Perhaps he was just a bit outclassed, since he had lost his first seven games coming into this round 8 struggle. Gordon was doing somewhat better. He had made two draws in the first seven rounds. Given the circumstances, perhaps their frivolity can be forgiven. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Tuesday, September 5th, 2006
10:20 pm	Scotch Gambit The scotch Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4) has been my major weapon against 1...e5. Theoretically, Black doesn't have a lot of problems after either 4...Nf6 (heading for the Two Knights or Max Lange) or 4...Bc5. However, sometimes even good players respond in a stereotypical manner and get into trouble. Moody,David (1826) - Carlin,Alfred (2110) [C55] Monday Swiss #2 Atlanta, Ga. (1), 11.08.1980 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0-0 d5?! Out of place here, since White can put immediate pressure on the e-file. 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.Re1+ Be7 8.Nxd4 Kf8 I think he was planning to play 8...0-0, but noticed the trap in time: 9.Bxd5 Qxd5 (9...Nxd4 10.Qxd4 c6 11.Qe4) 10.Nxc6 and White wins a piece, or more if Black tries 10...Qxd1 11.Nxe7+. I've caught more than one person with this one. 9.Nc3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Na5? Pretty bad. I guess he was trying to chase the bishop off the diagonal so he could play ...f6 and ...Kf7. Being a nice guy, I try to help him play the latter move. 11.Bxf7! c5 11...Kxf7 12.Qh5+ is a long fork. 12.Ne6+ Bxe6 13.Bxe6 Qxd1 14.Rxd1 This is not easy for Black, as he isn't going to be able to develop his KR for some time. But he just collapses completely. 14...Rd8 15.Be3 b6 16.Rxd8+ Bxd8 17.Rd1 Ke7 18.Bh3 Nc6 19.Rd7+ Kf8? No better is 19...Kf6? 20.Rd6+. But 19...Ke8 might have given him a ghost of a chance. 20.Rd6 1-0 (5 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, August 29th, 2006
9:26 pm	What's going on I'd like to explain where I've been lately. One thing is that I got healthy and went back to work, which left less time for posting here. The big reason, however, is that I've been hanging around at www.chessgames.com, under the user name Phony Benoni. It's an interesting place, if a bit juvenile at times. (Right now, I've just spent several posts yelling at people who keep misspelling the author's name as Dr. Suess, instead of Dr. Seuss. We don't talk just chess.) At any rate, I've received a request for some of my games with gambits. Assuming this means the games where I intended to play a gambit, here goes. Let's start with the King's Gambit. Overall, I've had reasonable results with this against weaker players, not so great against stronger. Perhaps that's no different than normal, but I have to admit I don't feel comfortable with this one. Moody,David (1871) - Rothenbusch,Herman (1576) [C37] US Open Friday 30-30 Palo Alto, Calif. (3), 14.08.1981 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 Nc6 Hmm. I didn't know you could decline the Muzio. Nobody ever does. 6.d4 Bh6 7.Ne5 OK, OK, if you're going to insist. 7...Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qg5 Now there's no reason not to play simply 9.Bxf4, but I was out to sacrifice a piece and wasn't going to let his reluctance to take one stop me. 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 I don't get this guy. He declines to take the knight, fearing an attack, then takes the bishop and walks right into a ready made one! 10.Bxf4 Qxf4 11.Rxf4+ Bxf4 12.Qf1 I imagine he missed that. Black plays consistently from here on in, refusing to develop any piece other than his king. 12...h5 13.Qxf4+ Ke8 14.Nc3 c6 Does this stop Nd5? Ha! It does no such thing when Wild and Crazy Piece Sacrifice Man is playing! 15.Rf1 Kd8 16.Qf8+ Kc7 17.Nd5+! Take that! 17...cxd5 18.Qc5+ Kb8 19.Qd6# 1-0 (5 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, August 14th, 2006
5:08 pm	Hippity-Hop I have noticed that when someone really wants to play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, they don't let anything stop them. Motta,P (2152) - Pasik,R (1917) [C15] Oregon Open Portland, Ore., 1990 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 No way, Jose! 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Be3 dxe4 5.f3 Wanna bet? 5...Nf6 6.Qd2 Nbd7 7.a3 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Nd5 9.Qd2 Nxe3 10.Qxe3 exf3 11.Nxf3 0–0 12.Bd3 Nf6 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.0–0 Bd7 15.Qh3 h6 16.Rf3 Bc6 17.Rg3 Kh8 18.Rf1 Rad8 OK, this has gone on long enough. Let's start throwing things around! 19.Rg6! Ng8? Of course 19...fxg6 allows the knight fork, but 19...Ne4 is a better defense. The text just makes things worse. 20.Rxe6!! Qxe6 What else? The only other square the queen has is g5, when White just starts chomping happily on f7. 21.Qxe6! fxe6 22.Ng6+ Kh7 23.Nxf8+ Kh8 24.Ng6+ Kh7 25.Ne5+1–0 As his choices have dwindled to mate-in-one after 25...Kh8 26.Nf7#, or mate-in-three with 25...g6 26.Rf7+ Kh8 27.Ng6# (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, July 27th, 2006
7:10 pm	Smorgasbord If you've never seen this game, you must play through it. White sacrifices every one of his pieces. Literally. Serper,G - Nikolaidis,I [E70] St. Petersburg, 1993 1.c4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nge2 Nbd7 6.Ng3 c6 7.Be2 a6 8.Be3 h5 9.f3 b5 10.c5 dxc5 11.dxc5 Qc7 12.0–0 h4 13.Nh1 Nh5 14.Qd2 e5 15.Nf2 Nf8 16.a4 b4 17.Nd5 We start off with the QN, to get a couple of passed pawns. 17...cxd5 18.exd5 f5 19.d6 Qc6 20.Bb5 The KB gets into the act. 20...axb5 21.axb5 Qxb5 21...Qb7 22.c6 Qb8 23.b6 would be a pretty picture. 22.Rxa8 Qc6 23.Rfa1 f4 24.R1a7 Nd7 24...fxe3 is met by 25.Qd5! 25.Rxc8+ The QR goes, to keep the Black king in the center. 25...Qxc8 26.Qd5 Abandoning the QB to its fate. 26...fxe3 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rxd7 Take the KN while you're at it! 28...exf2+ 29.Kf1 Qe8 30.Rf7+ The KR joins the rest of the gang. 30...Qxf7 31.Qc8+ Qe8 32.d7 Kf7 33.dxe8Q+ Rxe8 34.Qb7+ Re7 35.c6 Go ahead! Make my day! 35...e4 36.c7 e3 37.Qd5+ Kf6 38.Qd6+ Kf7 39.Qd5+ Kf6 40.Qd6+ Kf7 41.Qxe7+ After having actually survived to the time control, the queen forces herself on Black. 41...Kxe7 42.c8Q Bh6 43.Qc5+ Ke8 44.Qb5+ Kd8 45.Qb6+ Kd7 46.Qxg6 e2+ 47.Kxf2 Be3+ 48.Ke1 1-0 (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, July 23rd, 2006
7:35 pm	The quiet killer Most winning moves bring to mind July 4th fireworks. The sky erupts in colors, the board explodes, and the poor victim resigns with a face more smudged by gunpowder than red from embarrassment. But sometimes that killer move wouldn't wake a baby. bookman (1682) - rsanchez (1703) [B14] 2006Duo.17, 2006 This game is from an Internet Chess Club correspondence tournament. I'm not a good correspondence player, simply because I lack the patience to analyze a position until it screams for mercy. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 I have been playing the 4.Bd3 system for quite a few years, but Black has a lot of good ways to equalize and enough time to find them in a correspondence game. Therefore, I took the radical approach of trying to get a better position before attacking. 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.Bd3 Nf6 10.0–0 Be7 One has to wonder whether this bishop accomplished anything on its little jaunt. It looks like Black is trying to play 11...Nb4, and White decides to worry about it. 11.a3 0–0 12.Rd1 b6 13.Bf4 Bb7 14.Rac1 g6 If Black felt concern about White's pressure on h7, than 14...h6 seems more natural. Still, the text shouldn't be that bad as long as Black remembers to get his bishop to long diagonal. 15.Bc4 Hoping that the d5 push will come to something, but this idea commits him to messy kingside pawns. 15...Na5 16.Ba2 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Rc8 18.Qe2 Qd7 19.b4 Chasing the knight to what will hopefully be a more vulnerable square. 19...Nb7 19...Nc6 20.d5 exd5 21.Nxd5 with the double threat of 22.Nxf6+ and 22.Rxc6. 20.d5 exd5 21.Nxd5 Nxd5 22.Bxd5 Rxc1 23.Bxc1 Nd6? 23...Bf6 dominates the long diagonal while leaving White without a useful discovery. The text allows a killer move. 24.Bb2 1-0 Yes, that's all. White has the simple idea of 25.Qe5 followed by mate on g7 or h8. With his f-pawn pinned, Black can stop this only by giving up at least a piece, for example, 24...Qd8 25.Qe5 Bf6. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, July 5th, 2006
11:58 am	Be careful what you wish for Have you ever thought, "Boy, if I just had another queen, all my worries would be over!" Don't be so sure. Just ask Janez Barle: Odendahl,Steven - Barle,Janez [A62] Lone Pine (7.24), 1979 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Bg2 Bg7 8.Nf3 0–0 9.0–0 Re8 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Bg5 Qc7 12.e4 h6 13.Be3 Nd7 14.Nd2 a6 15.f4 f5 16.Bf2 Ndf6 17.e5 dxe5 18.fxe5 Rxe5 19.Nc4 Re8 20.d6 Qd8 21.Bxc5 Be6 22.Bb6 Qb8 23.Na5 Nd7 24.Bf2 Qd8 25.Nxb7 Qg5 26.Nd5 f4 27.Nc7 fxg3 28.hxg3 Nxg3 29.Re1 Ne5 30.Nxe6 Rxe6 31.Qb3 Kh7 32.Qxe6 Ng4 33.Re4 Nxf2 34.Kxf2 Rf8+ 35.Bf3 Nxe4+ 36.Qxe4 Rf4 37.Qe7 Qf5 38.Qe2 Bd4+ 39.Ke1 Rxf3 40.d7 Bxb2 41.Qe7+ Bg7 42.d8Q White's a queen up--but it's Black's move! The bishop on g7 might be paralyzed, but it's still powerful. 42...Rf1+ 43.Kd2 Qf4+ 44.Kd3 Rxa1 45.Qa5 Rd1+ 46.Kc2 Qc1+ 47.Kb3 Qb2+ 48.Kc4 Qd4+ 49.Kb3 Rb1+ 50.Ka3 Qb2+ 0–1 And now, from the very next round: Lein,Anatoly - Barle,Janez [C28] Lone Pine (8.11), 1979 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nc3 d6 5.Nge2 Be7 6.0–0 0–0 7.f4 Na5 8.Bb3 Nxb3 9.axb3 c6 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Ng3 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 Ng4 13.h3 Nf2+ 14.Rxf2 Bxf2 15.Nf5 Bxf5 16.exf5 f6 17.Ne4 Bb6 18.Bd2 Bd4 19.Bc3 Bxc3 20.bxc3 b6 21.Ng3 a5 22.Ra4 b5 23.Rh4 a4 24.Qh5 a3 25.Qxh7+ Kf7 26.Rg4 Rg8 27.Nh5 Qf8 28.Nxf6 a2 29.Qg6+ Ke7 30.Ne4 a1Q+ This time, the extra queen is probably winning. But I suspect there's time pressure in play here, and Lein doesn't give up that easily. In what follows, Black's rook moves along the sixth rank are particularly unfortunate. 31.Kh2 Kd8 32.Qxc6 Ra6 33.Qd5+ Kc7 34.f6 Rxf6 35.Qxe5+ Kb6 36.Qd4+ Kc6 37.Rg5 Rd6 38.Qc5+ Kd7 39.Qxb5+ Rc6 40.Qb7+ Rc7 41.Rd5+ Ke6 42.Ng5+ 1–0 (Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006
8:24 pm	Cross checking A common scenario in commercials utilizing chess is the cross check. First, an impressive fellow with a Russian air moves a piece and says, "Check!" with an intonation implying that the game is essentially over and you are wasting his precious time. The opponent, usually a beautiful woman or a timid young kid with glasses, triumphantly moves a piece and says, "Checkmate!", thus proving that their soft drink of choice imparts superior brain power along with that tasty fizz. Such things rarely happen in real life, though I did do it once: Moody,David (2015) - Kung,Fred (1794) [C44] Trenton Mini-Swiss (June) Trenton, Mich. (1), 15.06.1985 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 d6 5.c3 dxc3 6.Qb3 Qd7 7.Nxc3 Na5 8.Qb4 Nxc4 9.Qxc4 Be7 10.0–0 Nf6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Rd1 Bd6 13.Nxe5 Qe6 14.Qb5+ Nd7 15.Nxd7 Bxd7 16.Qxb7 0–0 17.Nb5 Rab8 18.Nxc7 Qe5 19.Qd5 Qxh2+ 20.Kf1 Bxc7 21.Qxd7 Qh1+ 22.Ke2 Rfe8+ 23.Be3 Qh5+ 24.Kf1 Qh1+ 25.Ke2 Qh5+ 26.Kf1 Red8 27.Qa4 Qh1+ 28.Ke2 Rxb2+ 29.Bd2 Black is winning this easily; after 29...Qxg2, he has two extra pawns in addition to a crushing attack. Instead he finds: 29...Re8+?? 30.Qxe8# 1–0 I don't know if that proves anything about my soft drink of choice. More common than answering a check with checkmate is answering with a simple check, or "cross checking". Even so, I doubt it occurs in more than two or three per cent of games. Also, it's usually of a single type. Consider this position: W: Ke3, Pf3, g3 B: Ke5, Pg5 Now 1.f4+ gxf4+ 2.gxf4+ gives us three checks in a row. I wouldn't be surprised if this scenario accounted for more than 75% of cross checks in real games. That's why this game is so unusual. In addition to the standard cross checking scheme just mentioned, it has two other cross checks of entirely different types. Matthew Muir (1937) - Ken Spencer (2132) [B21] MOTCF Columbus, Ohio, 1993 [Ohio Chess Bulletin, 1993:Jan./Apr.] 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d3 4.Bxd3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.0–0 Nf6 7.Bg5 h6 8.Be3 e6 9.Nbd2 Be7 10.Qe2 0–0 11.Nd4 Ne5 12.Bc2 Nfg4 13.f4 Nxe3 14.Qxe3 Ng4 15.Qf3 e5 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 Qb6+ 18.Kh1 Ne3 19.Rfc1 exf4 20.Bb3 Qc6 21.Bc2 Qxf3 22.Nxf3 Nxc2 23.Rxc2 g5 24.fxg6 fxg6 25.Re2 Bf6 26.Re6 Rad8 27.Rd1 d5 28.Kg1 Kf7 29.Re2 g5 30.Red2 Ke6 31.Ne1 b6 32.Nc2 a5 33.Na3 g4 34.Nb5 Rf7 35.c4 d4 36.Nxd4+ Bxd4+ That's one. 37.Rxd4 Rxd4 38.Rxd4 Rf6 39.Kf2 Ke5 40.Rd2 Rc6 41.b3 Ke4 42.Re2+ Kd3 43.Re5 a4 44.Rf5 axb3 45.axb3 Ke4 46.Rb5 Rd6 47.Ke2 f3+ 48.gxf3+ gxf3+ That's our standard scenario. 49.Ke1 Ke3 50.Re5+ Kf4 51.Rb5 Kg4 52.c5 bxc5 53.Rxc5 Rd3 54.b4 Rb3 55.b5 Rb2 56.Rc6 h5 57.b6 h4 58.Rg6+ Kh3 59.Rd6 Kg2 60.Rd2+ Hoping for 60...Rxd2 61.Kxd2 and both sides queen, but the final cross check decides matters. 60...f2+! 0–1 (Comment on this)
Thursday, June 8th, 2006
8:35 pm	Chess for no good reason, part 36 U.S. Open side events Chess players used to weekend Swisses where they may play several games in a day can feel discombobulated at the slow pace of the U.S. Open. With just one game per evening, what is to be done with all that free time? If you're ambitious, you can study and prepare for your next opponent. If you dragged your family along, the days are your quality time with them. Then there is the average chess player who just gets antsy. That's why they invented U.S. Open side events. These are played during the day, usually at a fast time control. I grew to enjoy them, and played in as many as possible before burnout set in. I think my personal record is 36 games in two weeks, and I know that some played even more. Generally, I did better in side events than in the Open itself. I'm more of a day person anyway, and I think the quick time controls hurt my opponents more than they hurt me. At least this first one was successful! In this game, a little trap works out when Black looks several moves ahead. Alas, they're the wrong moves. Moody,David (1576) - Small,Charles (1443) [C18] 1st Quick Quad Fairfax, Va. (1), 17.08.1976 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Bd2 Not a totally horrible move; there are games when Grandmasters played it in international competition. But it still seems like wimping out a bit, and not in the spirit of this line. 8...Nbc6 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Qxg7 Rg8 11.Qxh7 cxd4 12.Bxc6 Qxe5+ 13.Ne2 bxc6 14.cxd4 Qf6 15.0–0–0 Rxg2 16.Rdg1 Rxf2 Missing a little point a few moves down the road. By the way, 16...Qxf2 17.Rxg2 Qxg2 18.Rg1 amounts to the same thing. 17.Rg8+ Nxg8 18.Qxg8+ Ke7 Probably anticipating 19.Qxa8 Rxe2, but White has a slightly better move. 19.Bb4+ 1–0 (Comment on this)
Saturday, May 27th, 2006
11:24 am	Chess for no good reason, part 35 Chess blindness Talking about "blindness" in chess can be a bit of a misnomer when the term is applied to mistakes in mental analysis. Since you're analyzing blindfold anyway, blaming "blindness" for blunders seems a bit strange. But it also happens that players simply miss stuff that is physically apparent on the board. You forget about the bishop lurking on the other side of the board, the rook hanging out where you don't expect it. My opponent in this game finds a new variety of chess blindness, much to my benefit. Gavilas,Ted (1266) - Moody,David (1576) [C55] U.S. Open Fairfax, Va. (2), 16.08.1976 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bc5 8.c3 If he's happy with a draw, White can consider 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 10.Kxf2 Qd4+ 11.Kf3 Qd5+ 12.Kf2 Qd4+ and Black must take the perpetual since taking the knight back gets the queen pinned. 8...Qf6 9.b4 Bb6 10.a4 a6 11.a5 Ba7 12.0–0 Bg4 13.Qb3 0–0–0 14.d4 The first sign that White is suffering from fits of blindness. He protects the d4 square twice, Black attacks it four times. Of course, this might also be a gambit; after all, White does get a little pressure for the pawn. 14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 exd4 16.Bg4+ Kb8 17.Bb2 dxc3 18.Bxc3 Bd4 19.Rac1 h5 20.Bf3 Bxc3 21.Rxc3 Nd4 22.Qc4 Nb5 Trading on f3 loses the pawn on f7 after White recaptures with the rook. 23.Re3 Rd4 24.Qb3 Rf4 25.Qd5 c6 26.Re8+?? How can such a move be explained? Gavilas claimed later that his eyes had betrayed him; he thought his rook on f1 was actually on e1! 26...Rxe8 27.Qxh5 Re5 28.Qh8+ Ka7 29.Rd1 Rh4 30.Qc8 Qe6 31.Qxe6 Rxe6 32.g3 Rxb4 33.Bg4 More blindness, probably due to apathy brought on by Sheer Disgust. 33...Rxg4 0–1 OK, so I didn't win this one without a lot of help. But after going a whole year without winning a tournament game, I wasn't fussy! (Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006
8:32 pm	Chess for no good reason, part 34 1976 U.S. Open After the 1975 U.S. Open finished, I didn't play another tournament game for a year. This isn't to say I wasn't playing; I took up correspondence chess around this time, and soon had about 100 games going at once. This was far too many to be very beneficial, but simple experience helped my play somewhat. The 1976 U.S. Open sticks in my mind for several reasons. First, it was played in a building on the campus of George Mason University rather than a hotel or conference center. The nearest lodging, if you didn't fancy the dormitories, was a couple of miles away. This led directly to my meeting GM Arnold Denker. I was hoofing it one day when a car pulled up and the driver asked if I wanted a ride. It turned out to be Denker, busy campaigning for some USCF office or proposal. When he learned that I wasn't a Delegate some of the chuminess went out of his manner, but he remained civil during the entire ride and even picked me up a couple more times. I even had one of my blitz games observed by Edward Lasker. He was rolling by in his wheelchair, and stopped to watch. I recognized him immediately, and got so nervous that I started blundering horribly. After the game, he commented nicely that "You could have played better", but I was too tongue-tied to reply and he quickly left. Finally, there was the incident that dated back to the end of the 1975 Open, when all the Michigan players gathered together and talked about their goals. The Experts wanted to become Masters, the A-players Experts, and so on. My goal was a little different. "Right now, I'm still 12 rating points ahead of that 11-year-old kid, Joel Benjamin. Next year, I still want to be ahead of him!" Sure enough, in round one of the 1976 U.S. Open, I was one board ahead of Joel Benjamin! Of course he was paired down while I was paired up, but still... Which brings us to the game, unfortunately. I play the White side of the Sveshnikov. Unfortunately, Black isn't playing the black side of the Sveshnikov, so my moves are ill-fitting and my position quickly disintegrates. Moody,David (1576) - Holroyd,Ken (2076) [B80] U.S. Open Fairfax, Va. (1), 15.08.1976 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Ndb5?! The first misstep. Black quickly kicks this knight into oblivion. 7...a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 b5 10.Ne2 Since White does not have control of d5 as in the Sveshnikov, this knight too must go into exile. 10...Bb7 11.Ng3 Qb6 12.Be2 Nc6 13.c3 Rc8 14.0–0 Qc5 15.Nc2 Ne5 16.Nd4 Nc4 17.Qc2 h5 18.Rfe1 h4 19.Nf1 Qg5 20.Nf3 Qf4 21.Bd3 h3 22.Qe2 hxg2 23.Ng3 Nxb2 And now, to top it off, White sees a cheapo that isn''t there and overloads his own queen. 24.Bxb5 ? axb5 25.Qxb5 Bc6 26.Qa6 Unable to be in two places at once, she tries the effect of a third. 26...Bd7 27.Re3 Nc4 0–1 I have one consolation from this game. Holroyd couldn't keep up with Joel Benjamin either. (Comment on this)
Sunday, May 21st, 2006
6:20 pm	Chess for no good reason, part 33 Sunday punch Like a lot of otherwise obscure boxers, many chess players have the ability to deliver a Sunday punch that staggers the opponent. The trick then is to put them away, and that's often easier said than done. In this game, I'm getting clobbered when White gets a little bit too fancy and allows a surprise shot. However, I lack the courage to follow up correctly, and the victim escapes. Quintero,Ricardo (2024) - Moody,David (1640) [C85] U.S. Open Lincoln, Neb. (12), 22.08.1975 The Swiss System can be a funny thing. Throughout this tournament, I had always been paired down after losing to an A-player. So I was fully expecting to go down again and finish up strongly--only to miss the cut and come up against an Expert. An Expert who was playing poorly, to be sure, but it was still a bit unsettling. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.g4 Bg6 10.Nxe5 Nxe4 11.Re1 Nxc3 12.bxc3 0–0 13.Rb1 f6 Losing a pawn in the Ruy Lopez again, but there's no saving it since 13...Rb8 allows 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Rxb8 Qxb8 16.Rxe7 snapping it off. The text seems a feeble way to search for compensation, however. 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Rxb7 Qc8 16.Rb3 Bd6 17.d4 f5 18.c4 fxg4 19.Qxg4 Qd8 Not wanting to trade queens down a pawn. 20.Bg5 Qc8 OK, OK, you talked me into it. 21.Re6 Confident that Black's kingside cannot survive a direct hit or two. 21...Rf5 22.Rxg6 Qf8 23.Bh6 Rf7 24.Rf3?? Looks good at first glance, but he should have taken a second look. 24...Rxf3 25.Rxg7+ Kh8 26.Qg6 Qg8! Oops! The mate is defended, and taking the queen gets the White queen pinned in response. 27.Qe4 Rf7? Chickening out; after 27...Rxh3! 28.Rxg8+ Rxg8+ and 29...Rxh6, Black ends up with two rooks and a bishop for the queen. I thought I would be able to set up a blockade against White's weak pawns, but it didn't work out. 28.Rxg8+ Rxg8+ 29.Kf1 Bg3 30.f4 Bxf4 31.Bxf4 Rgf8 32.Qxc6 Rxf4+ 33.Ke1 Rxd4 34.Qxc7 Rff4 35.c5 Kg8 36.c6 a5 37.Qb8+ Kf7 38.c7 Rde4+ 39.Kd2 Rd4+ 40.Kc1 Rf1+ 41.Kb2 Rb4+ Could I have seriously been hoping for 42.Ka3? 42.Qxb4 1–0 (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, May 13th, 2006
1:33 pm	Chess for no good reason, part 32 Sheer disgust My Most Faithful Reader has requested that I publish more of my wins. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of them at this point in my career. In fact, MFR might want to skip this painful loss completely. However, it does allow a quick discussion of the question: When should you resign? There is a school--in Michigan, it's Kearsley High School in Flint--which holds that you should never resign. Let's say your position is so bad that your chess judgment tells you it's time to resign. However, to get into such a fix, your chess judgment must be lousy, so why should you trust it by resigning? If that's the way you're going to play, fine with me. With all the lost positions I get, it's a pleasure playing one that's dead won. In fact, I prefer that you fight tooth and nail for every pawn and square till the bitter end. If you're just going to make random moves and try to get the game over with quickly, you're just wasting both of our times. Generally, I have these criteria for resigning: 1) Lost position. This is not too important, since I get one nearly every game. 2) No counterplay. 3) Opponent has shown the ability to win the game. 4) Most importantly, I'm no longer having fun playing. I can resist a lot longer in interesting positions. Of course, these can mean different things to different levels of players. But for me, at least, there is a fifth factor. 5) Sheer Disgust, which I can best explain by finally getting to the following game. By the way, if my opponent's name seems vaguely familiar, he would later become a Master and edit a collection of Reshevsky's games. Moody,David (1640) - Gordon,Stephen W. (1808) [B08] U.S. Open Lincoln, Neb. (11), 21.08.1975 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bc4 0–0 6.Be3 c6 7.Qd2 b5 8.Bb3 Ng4 9.Bg5 Nd7 10.h3 Ngf6 11.Bh6 A rather singleminded continuation. 11...a6 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.e5 dxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5? No, I can't explain this move, nor why I just didn't take the free pawn with 15.Nxd5 and 16.Bxd5. This is just another indication of my mood on this day. 15.0–0–0 e6 16.Ne4 Qc7 17.Nd6? Nxe5 Black, on the other hand, does nt miss his chance. 18.Nxe5 Qxd6 19.f4 f6 0–1? My resignation can only be blamed on Sheer Disgust. I was still mad at myself for blowing the pawn, and now thought that 20.Nf3 Qxf4 would win a second pawn and force the queens off the board--completely missing that 20.Nd3 would save the pawn. Hence, the premature resignation--though it seems with the way that I was playing perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea after all. (1 Comment |Comment on this)