1
2
President’s Corner
Hello – my name is Boyd
Reed, and as of January, I
am the new PCC president.
I’d like to talk about what
the Club is currently doing,
and my plans to help grow
the Club and its offerings.
Boyd M. Reed,
New Pittsburgh Chess
Club President
Before I begin, though, I’d
like to offer some words of gratitude for three longtime volunteers who are transitioning out of their
accustomed roles.
First, the reason there is a new president is because
Ronald Barber stepped aside in January. Ron has
served the Club with tremendous skill and grace for
the last ten years. Fortunately, he remains on the
Board, so we will still have the benefit of his wise
counsel.
Mike Holsinger has been a rock of our tournament
program for 11 years. He’s run an average of 11
events a year during that time. (We have 13 on our
annual schedule.) After over a decade of
outstanding work, Mike is stepping down as a TD.
Finally, Bill Hoppmann has edited En Passant, our
newsletter, for the last 13 years. Bill has done
tremendous work in editing, formatting and
distributing En Passant to the membership, and we
are grateful for his significant contribution to its
ongoing history.
Ron, Mike and Bill have been critical to our Club. I
hope we all take the chance to thank them
individually and directly for their service.
The good news is that we have volunteers stepping
in to pick up where these three stalwarts have left
off. I’d like to particularly single out our
membership director,
by Boyd Reed
John Barroso, who has added the duties of En
Passant editor and has also organized several great
simultaneous exhibitions for the Club’s benefit.
(Thanks to Melih Ozbek and GM Alex Shabalov for
their recent successful simuls, and thanks to NM
Franklin Chen for his upcoming simul.)
What these recent changes should reinforce is the
need for more volunteers to help with the continued
operation of the Club. Any time or talent you can
lend us will be gratefully accepted. If you have a
good game you’d like to share, a story about a
tournament you recently attended, or anything else
chess-related you’d like to see published, submit it
for En Passant! Share your digital photos with our
Facebook page, or our Twitter feed! Ever wanted to
learn how to direct or organize tournaments? We
are happy to train TDs – just ask! We’d love to
keep all our published hours of operation – but to do
that, we need more stewards!
As for me, my primary focus will involve
improving our overall communication, as well as
working to make our tournaments more profitable.
On the communication front, the Board is looking
to reboot our website, which should improve both
its form and its function. We’ll also be using our
social media and email to get out more timely
messages about our events and operations. On the
tournament front, we’ll be making some format
changes for our weekend events. We’re hoping to
bring in some new faces, and show them all the
benefits we have to offer, while also making our
tournament program more profitable.
If you’d like to volunteer, have questions, have
comments, or just want to talk about the Club,
please don’t hesitate to contact me by email at
[email protected]. Thanks for reading!
Boyd M. Reed
Pittsburgh Chess Club President
January, 2016.
3
ALEXANDER SHABALOV
His grandmother, Anna, and her daughter Svetlana,
Shabalov’s mother, then two-years old, escaped to
the east of Russia to make their way all the way to
A biography
By En Passant Editor John Barroso
Alexander Shabalov
has lived world history
from up close, most
often by choice. Even
before he was born
some events were
already destined to
become part of his life.
For instance, on June
22nd, 1941 (the day
Germany invaded
Russia), his
grandfather, who
served in Russian Army border patrol unit in
Klaipeda was missing in action. This is where our
biography starts as Shabalov himself does not have
much more information on his relatives prior to that
point.
Latvia Team, winner, 1978
Siberia where they lived, for about ten years when
then the two eventually moved to St Petersburg, and
finally Leningrad. That is where Shabalov’s mother
lived most of her teenager years where she
graduated in Engineering at the Leningrad
Shipbuilding Institute
Upon her graduation, she was sent to Riga, in the
Soviet Republic of Latvia as part of the Kremlin
program of Latvia’s Russification. This occurred
around 1965. Upon her arrival in Riga, where she
worked as an Engineer at the famous Riga
Electromechanical Factory, she met Anatoly, also
an engineer. Anatoly was a retired navy officer born
in Rostov, who was to become her husband.
Tal’s School
4
From this marriage there was born Alexander
Shabalov on September 12th, 1967. Throughout his
life, only two cities had the
privilege of hosting the young
and the older Shabalov: Riga
and Pittsburgh. Shabalov has
not lived anywhere else. In
Riga, where Shabalov lived
for 25 years, he went to
regular school. While
growing up Shabalov did a lot
of what the other kids did,
which included basketball ,
skiing and chess, which he
learned how to play at age 7
by watching his father playing
Tal’s School
with his friends. With regard
to chess, Shabalov developed
his initial skills at the
Pioneer’s Palace, a kind of
Russian Community Center
building where kids go after
school and spend time doing
whatever they want, from
sports, to chess, to arts. His
progress as a chess player was
quick. Shabalov won a
number of small, “B”
tournaments as a child, but at
age 11 he won a major
tournament and became what
could be called a Latvian
Junior Champion.
Winning that championship
was important for the young
Shabalov, as such a
momentous victory lead him
to meet and have classes with
the famous Mikhail Tal. At
this point, Shabalov started
playing board 1 for the
Latvian junior team and that is when
he and Tal grew up close. This lead to Shabalov
studying with Tal. Living two blocks away made
him a frequent visitor to Tal’s house.
During his young age Shabalov’s parents wanted
him to have a real profession, perhaps engineering.
But chess meant a lot more to Shabalov. Back in
those days, chess was also, besides prestige, a way
Russian Champion Under 16
to travel
abroad. In
1982 Shabalov was 16. The doors to the world
should have been open to Shabalov who was then
the Russian Champion “Under 16”, but instead, the
doors did not open. Someone else was added to
represent Russia at World and European Junior
Championships (to play the European
5
Championship). This created the desire in Shabalov
do leave Russia, but it was still too early and
impossible for that.
At age 15 actually, Shabalov had reached
Grandmaster level and in 1989, when Shabalov was
22, he played his first international tournament. It
was the first GMA tournament in Belgrade, then
Yugoslavia. It was the first during the Cold War
where “East” met “West. Shabalov, and about 20
other young Russians scored their first Grandmaster
norm. The final Grandmaster norm came two years
later, in 1991, in a tournament in the Paris suburb
town of Torcy, where Shabalov became a winner on
a tiebreak. Shabalov recalls that even in 1989, when
he was still an IM, he played several western
Grandmasters and noticed that they were “very
weak”, and therefore “targets”. He was awarded his
official GM title at the FIDE Congress in the
autumn of 1991.
By age 20, two years before reaching his
Grandmaster norm, Shabalov had married his high
school sweetheart Olga, who has been his wife ever
since. Olga, who is now a cardiologist, studied
medicine in Latvia and works at private practice
affiliated with the Shadyside Hospital. By 1992
Shabalov had been married for four years and the
couple already had their two daughters, Anna and
Katherina Shabalov. Anna, who is now 28, is
married and lives in Pittsburgh, working for local
law powerhouse K&L Gates, after graduating from
Yale Law School in 2013. Katherina, who is now
24, lives in Manhattan, New York working for
Ketchum after graduating from Georgetown.
It was the year 1991, Shabalov had just become a
Grandmaster
when, in
negotiations with
the Soviet Union,
the Reagan
government was
accepting Russian
refugees. In
Latvia, the newly
independent
Latvia country
was pursuading
Russians to leave
and paying them
if they agreed to return to their historic motherland.
Shabalov chose the other direction though (he was a
Russian living in Latvia and as such, he was paid by
the Latvian government to exit the country).
Shabalov, applied for refugee status with the USA
embassy and as such was granted residence. Few
months before leaving Latvia for good, he played
for country’s national team on its first Olympiad
since 1938 in Manila, Phillipines. The Team scored
sensational 5th place, barely missed bronze, its best
result ever. The joyful feeling of this amazing
performance soon faded as few days after the
conclusion of the Olympiad his lifetime inspiration
and mentor, Mikhail
Tal died.
Shabalov arrived in
Pittsburgh in
September of 1992,
mostly because here
his wife already had
some relatives. Ever
since, Shabalov has
been a resident of
Pittsburgh. In 1998
Alexander Shabalov
became an American Citizen. In that same year,
almost as in a revenge, Shabalov went back to
Russia, now playing for the American Team at the
Chess Olympiad in Elista, Kalmykia , where the
American Team almost edged the host team, scored
its best performance ever (in the Olympiads where
Russians also played) receiving silver medal.
Shabalov has played for the USA Team four times:
1994 in Moscow, 1998 in Elista, 2000 in Istanbul
and 2004 in Palma de Mallorca.
Shabalov has also
played the five
World Cups : 2001,
2007, 2009, 2011,
and 2013. One of his
major achievements,
as well, is the fact of
being four-times
USA Champion
(1993, 2000, 2003
and 2007). The USA
Championship that
“created a lot of
6
noise” was the 2003 USA Championship where he
and Varuzhan Akobian played an epic board fight
where Shabalov eventually won. Shabalov recalls
that three of the top four boards in that
Championship reached quick draws due to the fact
that “they did not want to play, they were happy
with the prizes”.
At a castle in England
Among his many wins, perhaps the 2015 USA
Open is the most important given he won with an
impressive score of 8.5 out of 9, at age 47. When
asked what was his best game, or most favorite
game, Shabalov quickly pointed to his 1992 Manila
Chess Olympiad (the game won third brilliancy
prize) victory against Ilya Smirin of Israel, whose
PGN appears at the end of this biography.
Shabalov does not have a college degree, although
he has attended four Universities (two in Russia,
two in the USA) but could not finish either due to
chess commitments. He has a younger brother, Ivan
Shabalov, who works in at Mellon Bank in
Pittsburgh.
SHABALOV’S BRILLIANCY PRIZE
AGAINST ILYA SMIRIN, 1992.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6
6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2
Be7 8.O-O-O O-O 9.f4 h6 10.h4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 a6
12.Be2 Qa5
13.Bf3 Rd8 14.g4 Bd7 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.g5 Ne8
17.Rdg1 h5 18.Bxh5
Bf8 19.f5 Qe5 20.Qd2 exf5 21.g6 fxg6 22.Rxg6+
Kh7 23.Rhg1 fxe4
24.Rh6+ Bxh6 25.Bg6+ Kg7 26.Bxe8 Kh7 27.Bg6+
Kg7 28.Bxe4 Kf7
29.Qxh6 Rh8 30.Bd5+ Ke8 31.Qd2 Kd8 32.Re1
Qh5 33.Ne4 Qh6
34.Ng5 Kc7 35.Re7 Rae8 36.Qa5+ b6 37.Qc3+ Kd8
38.Rxd7+ Kxd7
39.Qc6+ Ke7 40.Qc7+ Kf6 41.Qxd6+ Kf5 42.Qd7+
Ke5 43.Bf7 Qf8
44.Qd5+ Kf6 45.Qf3+ Ke7 46.Qb7+ Kf6 47.Qxb6+
Kf5 48.Qf2+ Ke5
49.Qg3+ Kf6 50.Qf4+ Ke7 51.Qc7+ Kf6 52.Qc6+
Ke5 53.Qd5+ Kf6
54.Qf3+ Ke7 55.Qb7+ Kd8 56.Qb8+ Ke7 57.Qa7+
Kd8 58.Qa8+ Ke7
59.Qa7+ Kd8 60.Qb6+ Ke7 61.Qe6+ Kd8 62.Qb6+
Ke7 63.Qxa6 Rb8
64.Qa7+ Kd6 65.Qd4+ Kc6 66.Bd5+ Kd7 67.Nf7
Rh6 68.Qg4+ Kc7
69.Qf4+ Rd6 70.Qxd6+ Qxd6 71.Nxd6 Kxd6
72.Bf7 Rf8 73.Bg6 Rf1+
74.Kd2 Rf2+ 75.Ke3 Rh2 76.h5 Ke5 77.Kd3 Kd5
78.Kc3 1-0
Biography produced by
En Passant Editor John Barroso, February 2016.
7
Peter Jansen
Solution to the Christmas Tree Problem
which appeared in the December/2015 edition.
The paper plate mat in Sao Paulo1 definitely made
for an interesting anecdote! But was there any real
chess behind it?
Initially somewhat skeptical, I ended up letting
curiosity get the better of me and I made an attempt
to decipher the position -- and found a genuine and
rather cute mate in 2 problem !
#2 (white to play and
mate in 2 moves), by
Dr. Mauricio Levy,
1926
Rather than just tell
you the solution, let me
imagine some of the
thoughts someone might have while solving this
problem. And in passing I’ll mention some
terminology and give you some examples to solve
as exercises (provided you like that sort of thing)!
One useful solving strategy is to start out looking
for what is already in place in the position --after
which moves by black does white already have
mate? (called set play in problem parlance). That
may tell us something about the function of the
various pieces in the position, and often plays a role
in one way or another in the thematic content of a
problem.
We also note that it is what is called a symmetrical
problem (it is depicting a christmas tree after all!).
In order to not have 2 possible solutions (or have a
boringly symmetrical key) something in the position
has to be asymmetrical, and that may provide us
with a clue.
fail to an immediate mate (in the following '~'
means 'moves anywhere'):
1. ... Ng6~ / Nc6~ / fxg5 / dxc5 / f5
/ d5
/
Bd5(f3,g2,g1)
2. Nf8 / Nd8 / Nxg5 / Nxc5 / Rxg6 / Rxc6
/ f5
mate.
So black is already almost in complete zugzwang,
and only after
Bf5(d3,c2,b1) do we not have a mate yet.
As to the symmetry, we discover that d4 has a
bishop as opposed to the pawn on f4. We can
hypothesize that maybe the bishop will move
backward, or cover something further away, or that
the pawn will move forward to check (or, indeed,
mate!).
Following this line of thought a bit further, since the
bishop cannot mate on d5, we could consider trying
to get another piece there (or to the a2-c4 diagonal).
For example, we could look at 1. Rxb5 for a 2.
Q(x)c4 threat, but that threat turns out to be too
slow (it is not mate immediately).
That brings us to our queen. We don't need it for
any of the mates in the set play; can we get it to d5?
When we realize Be4 will have to move, the
solution becomes obvious if still rather spectacular
for us tournament players. After 1. Qg2! the
zugzwang is complete: all the mates that worked in
the set play still work (in particular 1. ... Bxg2 2.
f5#), and after 1. ... Bf5 (d3,c2,b1) we now have 2.
Qd5 mate!
Note that 1. Qg2, the key move, is not threatening a
mate next move!
It is only because it's now black's turn to move that
he gets mated.
Besides zugzwang, this kind of problem is called a
tempo problem or block problem.
In this case we have an incomplete block problem
since in the initial position some moves were not
provided for and the key move completes the
zugzwang.
So what do we have here?
It becomes clear quickly that black doesn't have
many moves, and that in fact most of those moves
1
En Passant Vol.71 No.2, Dec 2015, p. 24
In some problems, black is already in zugzwang in
the initial position. Then white needs to find a
waiting move that doesn't disturb the mates. That is
called a complete block problem. An example I’ll
leave for you to solve is a version of a problem
8
taken from the 13th century Bonus Socius
manuscript. Again, white to play and mate in 2
moves (find the
waiting move!).
Sometimes, there are
no good waiting
moves. If white can
however create a new
zugzwang (in which at
least some of the mates
are now different), it is
called a mutate. The following #2 problem,
composed by H. van Beek (also in 1926), illustrates
this concept. Somewhat more difficult than the
previous one, but I trust you can figure it out!
Have fun!
Peter Jansen
PS. My thanks to
Robert Atwell for
comments and
suggestions!
THE LIFE OF A PAWN
A Poem
All little soldiers standing in their rows.
Upon a field of squares, you prepare to meet your
foes.
You never say a word or utter a complaint, knowing
that death looks at you only across the way.
Then some hand moves you to a square you’ve
never been to before.
Not knowing if you will live or die, you stand and
await your fate.
As you look around, only two colors can be seen.
Now you are deep in enemy territory for all the
colors around you are different than your own.
Where have all your buddies gone? Have they
fallen, every one?
Lonely pawn, standing with no colors of your own,
with death about to touch you-You move to the
throne!
You look across the square behind you and your
King looks back at you and smiles.
For you saved him from capture, when all his
knights and bishops failed.
Just a pawn pushed to its limits, becoming a Queen
to save the game.
SPECIAL EVENTS DIRECTOR
NEEDED
The President of the Pittsburgh Chess Club is
inviting club members who would like to energize
the club’s events, to contact him directly. Position
starts immediately: [email protected]
You performed bravely, little pawn.
Be happy in this moment for tomorrow you must
play again.
By Robert D. Stuart
March 2005
Reprinted with permission
Permission obtained by Paul Lucarelli
9
BOOK ‘EM
Death Took Them Too Soon
By Steve O’Connor
In this column, I will talk about several
chessplayers who died before their full potential
was realized. I could have included Richard Reti,
and Harry Nelson Pillsbury in this group, but they
had established themselves in the top tier of the
chessplayers of their time prior to their death.
Rudolph Charousek
Rudolph Charousek
was born in Prague in
1873 however he
spent most of his life
in what is now
Hungary. Charousek
learned how to play
chess around age 14,
receiving a chess set
as a Christmas gift.
He soon became one
of the strongest
players in Miskolc,
his home city.
champion Emanuel Lasker, as well as Janowski and
Blackburne. In the same year he was tied for second
at Budapest with Mikhail Chigorin. He won at
Berlin 1897 ahead of 19 masters (winning all 9
games in the last 9 rounds) and the following year
he was second at Köln, ahead of Steinitz, Schlechter
and 12 other masters.
He was one of a few players who had a plus record
against Emanuel Lasker, having defeated the world
champion at Nuremberg 1896. Lasker was so
impressed that he is reported to have said "I shall
have to play a championship match with this man
some day".
Charousek died of tuberculosis in 1900 at the age of
26. We have a rather thorough game collection of
his written by P. W. Sergeant in our library.
Gyula Breyer
Steve O’Connor:
Vice-President of the
Pittsburgh Chess Club
In 1893 he went to
Budapest and played chess at the Budapest Chess
Club for the first time. Right from the start,
Charousek defeated many of the strongest players at
the club. He drew his first match with Géza
Maróczy, then defeated Hungary's strongest player,
Gyula Makovetz.
In July and August 1896, in the surroundings of a
Bavarian exposition, a grand chess tournament was
planned in Nuremberg, the hometown of Dr.
Siegbert Tarrasch. All the strongest players in the
world were invited, but Charousek was not invited
by the organizers, despite the pleading of Maróczy.
However, when Henry Bird could not participate,
Charousek was officially invited to play in the
tournament.
Gyula (Julius) Breyer was born in 1893 in
Budapest, Hungary. He, along with Nimzovich,
Tartakover, and Reti was one of the four original
hypermoderns. He is credited with saying that “after
1.e4 white’s game is in its last throes.”
At Cologne in 1911 he was only 6th but in the
Hungarian Championship at Temesvar 1912 he
finished 1st ahead of Lajos Asztalos, Zoltan Von
Balla, Kornel Havasi and Richard Reti. After the
First World War at Berlin in 1920 he was 1st ahead
of Efim Bogoljubov, Savielly Tartakower, Reti,
Geza Maroczy, Jacques Mieses, Siegbert Tarrasch,
Friedrich Saemisch, Paul Saladin Leonhardt, and
Rudolf Spielmann. He made many contributions to
opening theory such as the Breyer (Retreat) Defense
to the Closed Ruy Lopez He would have
undoubtedly gone further had heart disease not cut
his career short. He died in 1921 at age 28 of a heart
attack.
Vera Menchyk
He was 12th out of 19 players at Nuremberg 1896,
ahead of Marco, Albin, and Winawer and defeating
the tournament winner (in the final round), world
Vera Menchik was born in Moscow in 1906 but, in
the aftermath of World War I and the Russian
10
Revolution, moved with her family to England in
1921. Her father taught her chess when she was
nine and, in the year of her arrival in England at the
age of fifteen, she won the British girls'
championship. The following year, she became a
pupil of Géza Maróczy.
She won the first Women's World Championship in
1927 and successfully defended her title six times
only losing one game, while winning 78 and
drawing four games during these seven
championships. She won two matches against Sonja
Graf for the Women’s World Champion title; (3-1)
at Rotterdam 1934, and (11½-4½ ) at Semmering
1937. Sonja Graf was the second strongest women's
player in the world at the time but looking at both
the games and the final result, their playing levels
were completely different. Menchik was head and
shoulders above any female chess player of her
time.
Although she did compete in mens tournaments, her
results were for the most part mediocre.
When, in 1929, Menchik entered the Carlsbad
Tournament, Viennese master Albert Becker
ridiculed her entry by proposing that any player
whom Menchik defeated in tournament play should
be granted membership into the Vera Menchik Club.
In the same tournament, Becker himself became the
first member of the "club". In addition to Becker,
the "Vera Menchik Club" eventually included Conel
Hugh O'Donel Alexander, Eero Book, Edgard
Colle, Max Euwe, Harry Golombek, Mir Sultan
Khan, Frederic Lazard, Jacques Mieses, Philip
Stuart Milner-Barry, Karel Opocensky, Samuel
Reshevsky, Friedrich Samisch, Lajos Steiner,
George Alan Thomas, William Winter, and
Frederick Yates.
Vera Menchik was killed in a V-1 rocket attack in
London in 1944 at the age of 38.
Edgard Colle
Edgard Colle was born in Ghent, Belgium, in 1897.
He won the Belgian championship in 1922, 1924
and 1926-1929. His international breakthrough was
in Scheveningen 1923. In 1924, he came in third in
the unofficial Paris Olympiad.
1926 was perhaps his best year. He won in
Amsterdam (ahead of Tartakower and Euwe) and in
Merano (ahead of Spielmann, Tartakower, Yates).
Apart of these successes, he also managed to finish
second in Weston Super-Mare. Afterwards, he
participated in many international tournaments. This
resulted in victories at Scarborough 1927, Hastings
1928/29, Scarborough 1930.
His main contribution to theory was the Colle
System. Although this is considered tame today, it
had the chess world baffled for a number of years.
Colle was always in poor health. He survived three
difficult operations, only to die as a result of the
fourth in 1932.
We have an excellent game collection of his in our
library entitled Colle Plays the Colle System.
Daniel Noteboom
Daniel Noteboom was born in Noordwijk, Holland
in 1910. He scored 11½-4½ at the 1930 Hamburg
Olympiad and also competed at Hastings 1931-32.
His name is associated with an extremely complex
variation in the Semi-Slav commonly known as the
Noteboom Variation.
After playing at Hastings 1931-32, he soon died of
pneumonia in London at age 21, ending a brief but
promising chess career.
Vladimir Petrovs
Vladimir Petrovs was born in Riga, Latvia. Though
he learned the game of chess relatively late, at age
thirteen, Petrovs made rapid progress. By 1926, at
age 19, he won the Riga Championship and finished
third in the national championship. He placed 2nd –
5th in the first Baltic Championship in 1931. Petrov
won a match against Vladas Mikenas (+2 –0 =1) in
1932, and narrowly lost a match to Rudolf
Spielmann (+1 –2 =5) in 1934.
11
Petrovs won the Latvian Championship in 1935
and 1937. He won at Helsinki in 1936, and tied for
first with Samuel Reshevsky and Salo Flohr at
Kemeri in 1937, ahead of Alexander Alekhine, Paul
Keres, Reuben Fine and others. This was Petrov’s
finest tournament achievement. Petrovs placed 3rd5th at Łódź in 1938, behind Pirc and Tartakower,
and third at Margate in 1938, behind Alekhine and
Rudolf Spielmann defeating Alekhine in their
individual game.
Petrovs played for Latvia in all seven official Chess
Olympiads from 1928 to 1939. He also played at the
unofficial Olympiad at Munich 1936.
He won two individual medals: gold in 1931 and
bronze in 1939. He achieved a particularly brilliant
result playing on top board at Buenos Aires: he was
undefeated, drawing with world champion
Alekhine, former world champion Capablanca and
the young superstar Keres, and winning against
Vladas Mikenas among others.
In 1940 the Soviet Union annexed Latvia. Petrovs
finished 10th of 20 in the 1940 USSR
Championship, and took equal third at Riga in 1941,
and second in several strong tournaments: Moscow
in 1941, Moscow in 1942, behind Igor Bondarevsky
and Sverdlovsk in 1942, behind Viacheslav
Ragozin.
When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on
22 June 1941, Petrovs was unable to return to his
wife and daughter at home in Latvia. He remained
in Russia and was arrested in August of 1942 under
Article 58 (a dictum by Stalin that stated any
negative expression toward the Soviet Government
would be considered to be treasonous behavior) for
criticizing living standards in Latvia after the
Soviet annexation of 1940. Petrovs was sentenced
to ten years in a corrective labor camp. In 1989
Russia finally got around to releasing the fact that
he had died, in 1943 from pneumonia at Kotlas, one
of the more brutal gulags in the Soviet system.
Petrovs wrongly thought that because he was a
celebrated chessplayer, he was beyond reproach,
however he became painfully aware that despots
apply equal opportunity abuse.
There are many more that qualify for this group.
Don MacMurray, Cecil Valentine DeVere, and
Klaus Junge come to mind, but space does not
permit at this time.
BEILIN LI
Interesting Endgame against
GM Shabalov (Simul).
The last game in Shabalov’s February 6th Simul had
spectators gather around Beilin’s table. Here is the
full game with Beilin’s annotations.
GM Shabalov - Beilin Li
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. a3 d5 5. cxd5
Nxd5 6. e3 a6 7. Qc2 Be6 8. Be2 Be7 9. O-O O-O
10. b4 I am not familiar with the English but
fortunately we are now well out of theory.10...f5 11.
Bb2 Bf6 12. Bc4 e4 13. Qb3 Nce7 14. Nxd5 Bxd5
15. Nd4 Kh8 16. Rac1 c6 17. d3 exd3 18. Rfd1
f4?! Forcing me to give up the bishop pair. I
thought I had tactical possibilities but hadn't looked
at f4 enough; however I had just taken a pass on the
previous move and didn't want to do it a second
consecutive time. 18...Bxc4 is fine though. 19. exf4
Bxd4 20. Bxd4 Rxf4 21. Rxd3 21. Qxd3 is better
for White. 21...Nf5 22. Be5?? Rxc4! 23. Rxc4
b5?! 23...Qe7! 24. Bc3 b5 preventing Shabalov's
partial escape, is even better. 24. Bxg7+ Nxg7 25.
Rcd4 Qg5 26. Rxd5 26. Rg3?? Bxb3 27. Rxg5
Ne6 26...cxd5 27. Rxd5 Re8 28. g3 Qc1+ 29. Kg2
Qc6 30. Qf3 Kg8 31. h4 Rf8 32. Qe4 Re8 A
repetition to buy some time while Shabalov walks
around 33. Qf3 Qa8 34. Rd6 Nf5 35. Qxa8 Rxa8
36. Rd7 Rc8 37. Rd5 Rf8 38. h5 Kg7 39. g4
Nh6?! Shabalov recommended 39...Ne7 40. Kg3
Rc8 41. Rd7+ Nf7 42. f4 Rc3+ 43. Kh4 Rxa3 44.
h6+ Kf6? 44...Kf8! escapes 45. Rc7 Nxh6 46. g5+
Kf5 47. gxh6 Rf3 48. Rxh7 Rxf4+ 48...Kg6 draws
easily 49. Kh5 Rxb4?? 49...Kf6 also! 50. Rf7+
Ke650...Ke4 51. Rg7 Kf3 52. h7 Rb1 53. Rg4 is
similar 51. h7 Rb1 52. Rf4 the interference I had
missed 52...Rh1+ 53. Rh4 Rxh4 54. Kxh4 Kc4 55.
h8=Q Kc4 56. Qa1 1-0
12
“Endgame Studies” by Robert C. Atwell
Column #2 (studies ES7 to ES12)
Endgame Columnist and Pittsburgh Chess Club Board of Directors.
ES7 WHITE TO PLAY AND DRAW (medium)
Composers: V and M. Platov, 1907
ES8 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (easy)
Composer: J. Moravec, 1937
ES7A WHITE TO PLAY AND DRAW (medium)
TWIN: Move Black pawn on d6 to d7
Composer: Robert C. Atwell, 2014
13
ES9 WHITE TO PLAY AND DRAW (medium)
Composer: K. A. L. Kubbel, 1922
ES11 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (difficult)
Composer: A. O. Herbstmann, 1934
ES10 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (difficult)
Composer: K. A. L. Kubbel. 1925
ES12 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (very difficult)
Composer: J. Drewitt, 1917
Six more outstanding classic endgame studies, one of which has a twin, appear in this column for you to solve.
Solutions will appear in the next issue of En Passant.
ES7 WHITE TO PLAY AND DRAW (medium)
Composer: V and M. Platov, 1907
(See ES7 diagram at the start of this column)
How can White deal with the imminent promotion of the Black pawn on d2? Black's primary threat is 1...Bf3+
ES7A WHITE TO PLAY AND DRAW (easy)
Composer: Robert Atwell, 2014
(Start with diagram ES7, and move the Black pawn from d6 to d7)
Note: This endgame study, the only (worthwhile) endgame study that I have composed to date, is a twin of ES7.
A twin problem is the original problem with a small modification in the placement of the pieces. In this case
the ES7A study thematically “mirrors” the content of ES7 in a rather pleasing way.
14
White is in the same predicament as in ES7. Black again threatens the devastating 1...Bf3+. Knowing the
answer to ES7 obviously make this a lot easier to solve.
ES8 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (easy)
Composer: Composer: J. Moravec, 1937
(See ES8 diagram at the start of this column)
White is up a pawn in this Rook and pawn ending, but the position looks drawish. If the White b-pawn gets
exchanged for the Black c-pawn the resulting position with the extra a-pawn will be a draw. The obvious
move 1 b7? can be met with 1...Kc6! and White can not win.
Fortunately White has the tactical means to create a seemingly unstoppable queening threat. But Black can then
use a little tactical ingenuity to prevent the coronation. Finally, White then has a forcing sequence that (just
barely!) wins the game.
ES9 WHITE TO PLAY AND DRAW (medium)
Composer: K. A. L. Kubbel, 1922
(See ES9 diagram at the start of this column)
It will soon be seen in this pawn ending that White has no way to win both Black pawns on the b and d files. in
general , one Black pawn can protect the other, without the assistance of the Black king, by being in a position
to advance and queen if White's king goes too far down the board to capture the other pawn. Meanwhile, Black
is threatening to simply bring his king to a7 and gobble up White's two useless-looking a-pawns. How can
White generate counterplay against this plan?
-------------The reader may have noticed that all 6 studies from the first column, ES1-ES6, and the first 3 studies in this
one, ES7-ES9, have contained NO KNIGHTS at all. Lest someone think I'm prejudiced against this honorable
chess piece, the remaining three studies ES10-ES12 all feature the knight as the hero of the story. In all three
of these, the White knight performs one of its most popular activities in endgame studies: assisting the White
queen in hounding a poor Black king all over the chessboard, driving it to its ultimate demise. The knight will
be seen playing more varied “roles” in later “Endgame Studies” columns.
Since the ONLY material White has in ES10-ES12 is a queen and a knight, it's pretty clear that there are only
two ways for White to win in these positions: (1) Checkmate the Black king; (2) Win the Black queen.
-------------ES10 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (difficult)
Composer: K. A. L. Kubbel, 1922
(See ES10 diagram at the start of this column)
In my opinion, this is the greatest of all endgame studies in the popular category of “White Queen and Knight
chase a Black King till it dies.” Actually this study so impressive that I personally rank it, along with the
“Saavedra” study ES6 from the previous column, as the first or second greatest classic endgame study of all
time. It's really hard to decide which is the better study, ES6 or ES10.
If you have never seen this classic study before, and can solve it from the diagram, you are brilliant. If you give
up on it, then at least look at the solution next month, or better yet, give it to a chess engine NOW, to witness
one of the most beautiful creations in the history of chess. The genius who composed it, K. A. L. Kubbel, also
ranks, IMHO, as the best endgame study composer in history. (Kubbel also composed the excellent pawn
ending ES9, incidentally.)
ES11 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (difficult) Composer: A. O. Herbstmann, 1934
(See ES11 diagram at the top of this column)
To say that the final position of this unbelievable masterpiece is “economical” would be a major
understatement. (That's a hint.)
ES12 WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN (very difficult)
Composers: J. Drewitt, 1917
(See ES12 diagram at the start of this column)
Compared to the violent king hunts of ES10 and ES11, this fine study is far more subtle, and has a shorter
solution. (The knight is not as big of a “hero” here, and actually doesn't even move around very much. ) A
different kind of thinking is required.
15
SOLUTIONS TO ENDGAME STUDIES ES1-ES6
Solution to ES1:
A very detailed solution to this easy example study was provided in the previous issue. 1 h7! Threatens 2 h8=Q
winning. If 1...Rd8 2 Rc6+ Kd2 3Rd6+! Rxd6 4 h8=Q wins. If Black plays a move like 1...Rd5, threatening
mate, White first drives the Black king off the c-file with 2 Rc6+! and then wins with 3 h8=Q.
Solution to ES2:
If you have a chess student who asks you: “What is a skewer?”, just show them this study, and they will never
ask you that question again.
1 Ra8! ...
Now 1...Qxa8 2 Bf3+ Is a skewer that wins the BQ. If 1...Qe6 2 Ra6+ is another skewer that wins the BQ.
1,..Qc4 2 Rc8+ is still another skewer that wins the BQ. If 1...Qd5 2 Bf3 is a pin that wins the BQ. If 1...Qh7 2
Bg6! Qxg6 (forced) 3 Ra6+ wins the BQ with a skewer. So Black must play:
1 ...Qa2!
Now Black is threatening 2.,,Qa1+, getting his queen out of any kind of danger. What can White do?
2 Rxa4! ...
This nice shot attacks the BQ and prevents 2...Qa1+. If 2...Qxa4 3 Be8+ with still another skewer. The BQ can
not move to c4,d5, and e6 for the same reasons as given above. So Black is forced to play:
2….Qg8!
Now what? Well, just repeat the idea:
3 Ra8!….
It's the same situation as after move 1, except now the BQ has no access to a2! The only place for the BQ to go
to is:
3...Qh7
4 Bg6! Qxg6 (forced)
5 Ra6+ ….
A final skewer. White wins. A simple, fantastic study by the great composer Rinck. Skewer city!
Solution to ES3:
At first glance it seems amazing that White can win here. And Black is threatening to win with 1...b1=Q.
1 Qd5+! Kh4
If Black plays 1...Kg4 White will win with 2 Qg2+! See move 3 of the solution.
2 Qh1+! Kg5(or g4)
3 Qg2+! Kh5(or h4)
If 3 ...Kf5 4 Qg6+ wins the BQ with a skewer. If 3...Kf4 4 Qg3+ Ke4 (or f5) 5 Qg6+ wins the BQ with the
same skewer. So the BK should go back to the h-file for maximum resistance.
4 Qh2+! Kg5
If 4….Kg4 5 f3+ wins the BQ.
5 f4+! ….
The BQ is lost (and the bP prevented from queening). White wins.
This tactical motif (moving a pawn with check to uncover the lateral attack of one piece on another) is the
whole point of this excellent Rinck study. A beautiful and surprising trick that can occur in games far more
often than one might think.
Solution to ES4:
This is another one of my top favorite endgame studies. Fairly easy to solve, but the final position is truly
startling!
1 h8=Q! …
Let Black play his skewer! If 1 Kg5 Black will win easily. For example 1...Bxh7 2 gxh7 Kg7 and Black has an
extra rook.
1...Rh2+
2 Kg5 Rxh8
16
3 g7+! Kxg7 (forced)
4 f6+! …
Now Black has two choices. If 4….Kf8, White is stalemated. But the really beautiful point comes after:
4….Kh7
Now Black is still up a rook and a bishop! But look how tangled up the Black pieces are!
5 Kh5! ….
Now BLACK is stalemated!!
Within a single move we have gone from White being stalemated (after 4...Kf8) to Black being stalemated
(after 4...Kh7 5 Kh5!).
What a truly amazing game chess is to produce a finish like this!
I thought this study was unique but I have found at least 2 others of a similar vein, although they do not have the
rich content of this one – it's quite a task to make a study that leads to a final position where you transition from
White being stalemated to Black being stalemated in a single move! I will present at least one of the other two
in a later column.
Solution to ES5:
Notice that if White plays 1 h4? Black will play 1...axb5! (not 1...a5?? and White queens on h8 and stops Black
from queening on a1) and safely queen his pawn on the square b1 right after White queens his pawn on h8.
White will not win.
1 b6+! …
This would seem to decide the game. If 1...Kxb6 2 h4. Black's king can not stop the White pawn from
queening in time, and when it queens, it will control the queening square of Black's a-pawn and prevent a1=Q.
So White will win.
But Black has a much better move available:
1...Kb8!!
And now:
2 h4 a5
3 h5 a4
4 h6 a3
5 h7 a2
6 h8=Q a1=Q!
And White can't play 7 Qxa1 because Black will be stalemated.
But the problem is not over, it's just getting started. White of course doesn't have to take the BQ. He realizes
that if he maintains his queen on the eighth rank, he will have a continuous threat of moving his king to d7 or e7
with discovered checkmate. The Black king is trapped on the first rank!
Now White plays:
7 Qg8! …
Black can not play a check now, for example 7...Qd4+?? 8 Ke7+ mates. Black is forced to maintain contact
with the WQ to keep White from mating:
7….Qa2!
And again the stalemate defense keeps the BQ from being capture.
Now if White tries 8 Qf8? Black will of course play 8...Qa3! Then White will have a problem: If he moves his
queen to another square on the eighth rank, Black will play 8...Qd6+! White's king can not move to the seventh
rank, and Black will capture White's b6 pawn with at least a draw.
So the f8 square is “mined” -White needs to avoid moving his queen there at all costs. The right move is:
8 Qe8! …
Bypassing the f8 square altogether! White threatens mate again. Black's reply is forced:
8...Qa4!
And now White has a sequence that will force the BK to a8 and allow the WQ back to the eighth rank again:
9 Qe5+!! Ka8
17
10 Qh8! …
Now Black has no stalemate defense! If 10...Qa1 11 Qxa1 is CHECK, not stalemate. Black is now lost because
he can not prevent discovered checkmate! White wins.
Final note: At move 7, trying 7 Qe8? Right away allows 7...Qg7!! (not 7...Qa4? Losing as in the main line)
and the White king is STUCK on the eighth rank! White will not win.
This problem, a pawn study that turns into an amazing “battle of queens”, is VERY difficult. If you solved it
from the diagram, never having seen it before, you are a pretty amazing analyst!
Solution to ES6:
1 c7 Rd6+!
Forced since 1...Rd8?? 2 cxd8=Q and 1…Rc5?? 2 Kxc5.
2 Kb5! …
White's only move to win. If 2 Kb7? (or a7) Re7 pins the pawn with a draw, If 2 Ka5?? Rc6 even wins for
Black. And if 2 Kc5? Rd1! and the next move of the Black rook to c1, with or without a check, must give
Black at least a draw.
2...Rd5+!
Forced. Black can't put his rook in a position to stop the pawn so he MUST keep checking to delay the
promotion.
3 Kb4!…
For the same reasons as given after White's second move, this is White's only chance to win.
3….Rd4+!
Forced again.
4 Kb3! Rd3+!
White could also play 4 Kc3 here. Then 4...Rd1! 5 Kc2! Rd4! reaches the same position as in the main line.
5 Kc2! …
Black has run out of board – he can't get his rook behind the WK to threaten a skewer check.
But he has a final and quite surprising defense:
5...Rd4!!
Prevents the pawn from queening, because 6 c8=Q? allows 6...Rc4+! 7 Qxc4 stalemate! This is brilliant!
What should White do now?
The key to winning the position is this: Black has prevented White from queening his pawn, but he hasn't
prevent White from promoting it…
6 c8=R!! ...
This is the single move discovered by the Spanish priest Saavedra that made him a famous person in the world
of endgame studies. Prior to his discovery, the position (with colors reversed) had been a DRAW study by
Barbier. The priest's discovery turned things around.
We now have a simple position with King + Rook vs King + Rook. Although such a position is invariably a
draw, this particular position happens to be won for White, due to the bad position of the Black king (the same
bad position that made the stalemate defense possible in the first place). White simply threatens 7 Ra8+,
mating. Black's only defense is:
6...Ra4
But now White has
7 Kb3! …
This double attack threatens both 8 Kxa4 and 8 Rc1 mate! Black has to lose his rook.
White wins. An amazing position. Such a wealth of complications in a position with just four pieces!
18
RACHEL GOLOGORSKY
I recently ran into Ellen Xiang at the Harvard chess club and
it brought back memories of the games we played together,
one of which I have annotated below.
This was the final game of the 2014 Kasparov All-Girls
Nationals and this game was critical to the arrangement of
the top 3 spots in the final standings.
Rachel’s wins:
2010 Gold medal winner, North American Youth,
2011 US Girls Junior Chess Champion,
2012 Kasparov All-Girls National Blitz Champion,
2012 PA State Chess Champion,
2013 Central Florida Chess Champion,
2014 Kasparov All-Girls National, 3rd place, and
2014 Bronze medal winner, North American Youth.
Member of the Harvard Chess Club
Member of Dreamporte, Harvard Students nonprofit
Creator of www.chessdates.com
(find a chess tournaments by zip code or distance).
Gologorsky, Rachel Gita (2034) - Xiang, Ellen (2030) [B38]
2014 Kasparov All-Girls Nationals (6), 13.04.2014
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Be3 Nc6 6.c4 Nf6 7.Nc3 0–0 8.Be2 d6 9.0–0 Bd7 10.Qd2 [This is one of the
main tabiyas of the Maroczy Bind structure. ]
10...a5 [This is slightly inaccurate.]
11.b3 [The move I played is White's main setup, but it doesn't capitalize on Black's inaccuracy. I should've played:]
[11.Ndb5 preventing Black from exchanging knights, and stopping the main idea of ...Nxd4 followed by ...Bc6. In
general, the side with more space should try to avoid trading pieces.]
11...Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bc6 13.Bd3 Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.f4 [The idea of attacking Black's king is correct, but the
implementation I chose was wrong. Better would have been the classical rook lift idea: Re1, Re3, Rh3, etc. This plan is
more versatile and less committing. ]
15...Qb6+ 16.Kh1 Qd4 17.Ne2 Qf6 [this is a very committal move, placing the queen on the periphery. Perhaps my
opponent was worried about the a1–h8 diagonal or was trying to be extra cautious by keeping her queen close to her king.
However, the queen is misplaced on the kingside.]
18.f5 [Subpar. This releases the tension too early and gives up the e5 square. Also, Black's king is defended by a bastion
of pawns, a rook, a knight, and a queen. What am I attacking this with? One rook and one pawn -- hardly a recipe for
success. Better would have been first bringing my pieces into position: ]
[18.Bc2 Kg8 19.Nd4 Nc5 20.Rae1 Rfd8 21.Rf3 Rac8 and only now, if I wish, 22.f5 The difference is clear: my knight has
joined, my rook can swing along the 3rd rank and another can easily join in, and new possibilities of e5 have been created
as well. In short: I would have greatly increased my chances of success by first improving my pieces. ]
18...Qe5 19.Ng1 Nc5 20.Nf3 Qf6 21.Rae1 Nd7 22.g4 [This is hardly a sound move: it opens up my king and suddenly
gives meaning to the bishop on c6. But since I was playing for the win, I went all in.]
22...Kg8 23.g5 Qg7 24.Qf4? [On the surface, this seems like a good move: I am moving my queen to a more active
square, with future ideas of Qh4 or Nh4 followed by f6. But to be honest and objective: Black's kingside is adequately
guarded by pawns, rook, queen, and knight, while White's queenside isn't guarded at all now.]
19
24...f6 [Black could've taken the opportunity and broken through on the queenside. But after all, my opponent wasn't a
computer either, and her desire to defend the kingside against the possibility of being mated is understandable.]
[24...Qc3³ 25.Qe3 a4 26.Bb1 Qb4 rerouting the queen back to where she belongs, the queenside. Black has lots of
queenside ideas now: she can pressure b3 with ...Nc5, pressure c4 with ...b5, open up the a-file with ...axb3, just to name a
few.]
25. Rg1? [This is losing. Now, the pawn can't be saved. Necessary was 25. gxf6 or 25. Bc2/b1, moving the bishop away
from the coming ...Ne5 attack.]
[25.gxf6 Rxf6 26.Qe3 e6 27.fxg6 Rxg6 28.Rg1 Kh8 29.Nd4 Nc5 White's position here is hardly pleasant; but at least I'm
not losing and can simplify down into a drawn endgame if I like: 30.Rxg6 Qxg6 31.Rg1 Qf6 32.Nxc6 bxc6 33.e5 Qxe5
34.Qxe5+ dxe5 35.Bc2; Alternatively, 25.Bb1 gxf5 26.gxf6 Qxf6 27.exf5 e5 28.Qe3 Nc5÷ offers an unclear, but a living,
fighting position where anything can happen.]
25...Ne5 [I now realize what deep trouble I'm in and try to make the best of it.]
26. gxf6 Qxf6 27.Be2 e6 28.Nd4 exf5? [This gives me a chance to go down into a drawn (or nearly drawn) endgame.]
[Deciding would have been 28...Nd3! 29.Bxd3 Qxd4 where I cannot save my skin due to all the pins. 30.Qe3 Qxe3
31.Rxe3 exf5 32.Rge1 Rae8 33.Kg1 f4µ White is passive and tied down to the e4 pawn while Black has a passer and is up
a pawn. This endgame should be an easy win for Black.]
29. Nxc6 Nxc6 30.Ref1? [Missing the chance to make things harder for my opponent:]
[30.exf5 Qxf5 31.Qxf5 Rxf5 32.Bg4 Rf6 33.Rgf1 Rxf1+ 34.Rxf1 Ne5 35.Bf3 Nxf3 36.Rxf3.Practically (and perhaps even
objectively), this endgame is drawn. It's a rook endgame where White is active, Black has a glaring weakness on d6 and
no possibilities of a breakthrough either.]
30...Rae8 31.Bd3 Qd4 32.Qh6 [My last shot: I'm threatening Rxg6+ and a perpetual check.]
32...Ne5 33.Be2 Qxe4+ [Setting up a trap:]
34. Bf3 Nxf3?? [The knight has been lured away from protecting the g6 pawn!]
35. Rxg6+ hxg6 36.Qxg6+ Kh8 [And we agreed on a draw here due to the perpetual check Qh6–Qg6.]
½–½
LEARN FROM THE GRANDMASTER:
Another game from Shabalov’s Simul
White: Alexander Shabalov
Black: Isaac Steincamp
White wins.
Comments from Isaac: Interesting opening choice by Shabalov as I got more than enough compensation for
the pawn, even without best play. Unfortunately, his endgame technique was much better than mine, showing
that there is a lot more than just assuming equals in opposite colored bishop endings
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.e5 Nc6 6.Qa4 Nd5 7.Qe4 Nb6 8.Bf4 Bg7 9.Nc3 d5 10.exd6 Bf5
11.Qe3 O-O 12.O-O-O exd6 13.Rxd6 Qc8 14.Bb5 Re8 (14. ... Nb4 15.Nd4 Nxa2+ 16.Kb1 Nxc3+ 17.Qxc3
Qxc3 18.bxc3) (14. ... a6 15.Bxc6 Nc4 16.Qc5 Nxd6 17.Bxd6 bxc6 {Shabalov saw this} ) 15.Qd2 Bf8 16.Nd5
Nxd5 (16. ... Bxd6 17.Nf6+ Kh8 18.Bxd6 (18.Nxe8 Bxf4 19.Qxf4 Qxe8) 18. ... Re6 19.Qc3 Nd4 20.Qxc8+
(20.Qxd4 Qxc2#) (20.Nxd4 Qxc3 21.bxc3 Rxd6) 20. ... Rxc8 21.Nxd4 Rxd6 22.Nxf5 Rxf6 23.Ne3 Rxf2 24.Rf1
Rxf1+ 25.Nxf1) 17.Rxd5 Be4 18.Rd7 Re7 19.Rxe7 Nxe7 20.Re1 Bc6 21.Bf1 Bxf3 22.gxf3 Qc6 23.Re4 Nf5
24.Bc4 Nd6 25.Bxd6 Qxd6 26.f4 Rd8 27.Qxd6 Bxd6 28.c3 Kf8 29.Kc2 Bc5 30.f3 Re8 31.Bd5 Rxe4 32.fxe4 b6
33.Kd3 Ke7 34.e5 h6 35.h3 g5 36.f5 f6 37.b4 Bf2 38.e6 h5 39.Bf3 h4 40.a3 Bg3 41.Kc4 Be5 42.Kb5 Bxc3
43.Ka6 Bb2 44.a4 Ba3 45.Kxa7 1-0
20
PCC Champions Since 2003
Bob Atwell, new PCC Champion (with Franklin Chen) has graciously compiled the document below where we
can see details of all of the PCC Championship and Champions since 2003. I appreciate very much the hard
work Bob put in producing this document.
John Barroso, En Passant Editor.
PCC CHAMPIONSHIP WINNERS, 2000-2016
Compiled by Robert C. Atwell
Being lucky enough to become co-champion in the 2016 PCC Championship motivated me to take a look at earlier PCC
Championships.
In the past 14 tournaments there have been 10 tournaments with clear winners, 3 tournaments with co-winners, and 1
tournament with a four-way tie.
There have been four perfect 6-0 scores (2 by Chen, 1 by Leverett, 1 by Dean).
The number of players in the tournament from 2003 to 2016 has been as low as 19 and as high as 30. The average
number of players was 24.9
The reason I stopped at the year 2003 was that the format before 2003 was different. PCC Championships prior to 2003
had 7 rounds, not 6.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Champions(s)
Jeffrey Schreiber
Bruce Leverett
Jeffrey Schreiber
Franklin Chen
Antonio Ambrad
Franklin Chen
Federico Garcia
Daniel Gordon
Daniel Gordon
Edward Dean
Edward Dean
Franklin Chen
Franklin Chen
Kevin Carl
Franklin Chen
Winning Score
5-1
6-0
22
5-1
Jeffrey Schreiber
Gonzalo Castillo
6-0
24
5-1
25
5-1
29
5.5-0.5 23
5-1
23
6-0
23
6-0
29
Edward Dean 5-1
Melih Ozbek 4.5-1.5
Robert Atwell 5-1
349
24.92857143
Number of Players
26
30
4.5-1.5 27
25
19
24
Notes
Four-Way Tie at 4.5
Tournament Director
Clyde Kapinos
Boyd Reed
Clyde Kapinos
Clyde Kapinos
Chen and Dean drew in Round 5
Ozbek beat Carl in Round 4
Atwell beat Chen in Round 6
Clyde Kapinos
Clyde Kapinos
Mike Holsinger
Mike Holsinger
Federico Garcia
Mike Holsinger
Mike Holsinger
Mike Holsinger
Mike Holsinger
Mike Holsinger
Number of Wins in the Years 2003-2016
Franklin Chen
5
Jeffrey Schreiber
3
Edward Dean
3
Daniel Gordon
2
Bruce Leverett
1
Antonio Ambrad
1
Gonzalo Castillo
1
Federico Garcia
1
Kevin Carl
1
Melih Ozbek
1
Robert Atwell
1
21
BOOK REVIEW
by Paul Lucarelli
BOOK: 100 Chess Master Trade Secrets from Sacrifices to Endgames
by Andrew Soltis
Last time I wrote about Ray Cheng's Practical Chess Exercises- 600 Lessons from tactics to strategy. In
that article, I wrote that
using this book was helpful in getting your "chess brain" turned on. Studying this book will open your mind to
the many varied possibilities
for tactics and positional nuances that occur in real games. But this is not the total scope or depth of a chess
game. There are many more pieces of knowledge that are required to become a "strong" player. That is what
we will be concerning ourselves with in this article.
In Andrew Soltis' 100 Chess Master Trade Secrets from Sacrifices to Endgames (2013 Batsford Chess),
you will find some of that much needed missing knowledge. Soltis divides his book into 4 chapters, each with
25 pieces of important chess knowledge focused around a single topic.
In chapter one he covers a topic which will be the main focus of my writing,
the topic of "priyomes". Chapter two covers must know "Endgame
Techniques". In chapter three the topic of "Crucial Sacrifices" is covered. And
finally in chapter four Soltis demonstrates to us 25 exact endings.
The reason Andrew Soltis is a popular chess author is because he
delivers exactly what improving chess players need. In chapters two, three and
four of his 100 Chess Master Trade Secrets book, Soltis gives us clear
examples and explanation of topics all chess players need to master. You will
not be successful in chess without the knowledge presented in these chapters.
Soltis does a great job in covering these topics. I recommend you study and
play through these examples.
However, what I want to focus on is the first chapter, and the idea of
chess "priyomes". The word "priyomes" is new to me and probably new to you
as well. From his book Soltis defines priyomes as a Russian word that
describes “... strategic devices which depend on pawn structure.". This is not to
say that priyomes are mostly or only concerned with pawn play. I'll define
"priyomes" as "a well known mini-plan, or technique". They are simply a way
or method of proceeding in a chess game when there are no tactics or captures and you are wondering what it is
that you should do. According to Soltis' book “The Russian trainer Anatoly Terekhin estimated that masters
know about 100 priyomes." Soltis gives us 25. Here is an example, one called "the Bird Bind". Named after
the 19th century English chess master Henry Bird. After the moves 1.f4 d5 2.nf3 c5 3.e3 nc6 4.Bb5, the idea
for White is to trade the bishop on b5 for the knight on c6 and thus gaining control of the e5 square. White then
hopes to place a knight on the square. This is probably something that you've seen in a game, as it is a fairly
common occurrence. In a similar vein, the priyome also works in Sicilian Defense variations where White can
exchange a bishop on g5 for Black's knight on f6 with the hopes of outposting a knight on the d5 square.
Paul Lucarelli
PCC Board of Directors
22
So, priyomes are strategic methods of achieving a superior position. They can be thought of as a
Standard Operating Procedure. These priyomes, or mini-plans so to speak, are one more aspect of chess that
players must be aware of and know how to handle in a game. They exist for White or Black. There are also
counter-priyomes, which are methods of preventing the priyome. Soltis encourages us to collect our own
examples for study. And I agree. It has been said that it is better to understand a move than to just memorize
them. It is important to know that these priyomes exist whatever you wish to call them. They are common and
you will come across them often in your own games or in the games of others. Look for them and use them and
your game will improve.
Soltis as usual serves his audience well with his 100 Chess Master Trade Secrets from Sacrifices to
Endgames. You'll be doing yourself a favor by studying it.-PL.
FRANKLIN CHEN AND BOB ATWELL:
2016 Pittsburgh Chess Club Champions
Franklin Chen and Bob Atwell shared the 2016 title of Pittsburgh Chess Club Champions. They now join a
distinct list of many names who have become part of our history. Below is the games that lead to their tie, with
Bob Atwell wining with black.
Franklin Chen (2201) - Robert Atwell (2000) [C24]
2016 PCC Championship, Round 6
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 Bd6 6.Nc3 d4 7.Ne2 Nbd7 8.c3 dxc3
9.bxc3 0–0 10.0–0 Nc5 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Ng3 Nh5 13.h3 Nxg3 14.fxg3 Bh5 15.Be3
Qe7 16.Qe1 f5 17.Bg5 Qd7 18.Nh4 f4 19.g4 Bf7 20.Nf3 Nxd3 21.Bxd3 Bc5+
22.Kh1 Qxd3 23.Nxe5 Qd6 24.Bxf4 Qe7 25.Nxf7 Rxf7 26.g5 Raf8 27.g3 Qe6 28.Kg2
h6 29.h4 hxg5 30.hxg5 Qg4 31.Qd2 Rd7 32.Qc2 Rfd8 33.Qb3+ Kh7 34.g6+ Kxg6
35.Qc2 Rd2+ 36.Qxd2 Rxd2+ 37.Bxd2 Qe2+ 38.Kh3 Qxd2 39.Rf4 Qxc3 40.Raf1 Bd6
41.Rg4+ Kh7 42.Rf7 Qb2 43.Rd7 Be5 44.Rg5 Kh6 45.Rg4 a5 46.Re7 Bf6 47.Re8 Kh7
48.Rf4 Qxa2 49.e5 Bg5 50.Rg4 Qf7 51.Rxg5 Qxe8 52.g4 a4 53.Rf5 a3 0–1
Before we show the annotated games,
here are the comments of each of the Champion upon the En Passant Editor’s request:
Franklin Chen: I wish I could say that my deciding final game in the PCC Championship was an interesting,
hard-fought game, but unfortunately, it was the worst game I have played in a couple of years. I had been
feeling unwell for three days and even took the day of the game off from work in an attempt to rest and play a
decent game: I saw no honorable alternative to playing the final round and did not feel I could forfeit such an
anticipated game.
The game started off well in the opening, and I reached just a slight advantage and was looking forward to a
23
long maneuvering game building up a King side attack, when everything changed. My opponent played a wild
16th move in front of his King and abruptly left the room. I could not believe my eyes, because I had ruled out
that move since it loses a Pawn and the game by force thanks to an in-between move attacking his Queen. I had
not expected to win the game so quickly, and in my haste to finish the game and go home, I didn't play the
winning move, but instead the in-between move follow-up (Bg5 attacking the Queen). Immediately after I
played the move out of order while he was still gone, I realized to my horror that I made exactly the same kind
of mistake as on Sunday during my Pittsburgh Chess League alternate game. I was devastated and lost
confidence in my ability to think, and the rest of my game was just one inexplicable terrible move after another,
and I finally deservedly lost after completely missing a very elegant mating combination against my King
involving a Rook sacrifice. The lesson: physical and mental health and resilience are a big part of human chess
and I failed on both counts in this game.
Bob Atwell: I agree with Franklin that I was the lucky beneficiary of several surprising mistakes. I played a bad
move at move 16, but White played the wrong order of moves and did not take advantage of it. Then after I lost
a pawn at move 20 I literally lucked out into a position where I had pressure on White's bishop on f4, which was
"pinned" on the f-file. When White tried to hold onto the extra pawn, Black's kingside pressure got worse.
Even after that, however, the position was defendable if the blunder 33 Qb3+? had been avoided. After that
Black was winning (although Fritz found an amazing trap with 34 Rf2! which I hope I would avoided). Black
finished with a nice "interference" check 35...Rd2+!}
Now the game as annotated by Bob Atwell:
I agree with Franklin that I was the lucky beneficiary of several surprising mistakes. I played a bad move at
move 16, but White played the wrong order of moves and did not take advantage of it. Then after I lost a pawn
at move 20 I literally lucked out into a position where I had pressure on White's bishop on f4, which was
"pinned" on the f-file. When White tried to hold onto the extra pawn, Black's kingside pressure got worse.
Even after that, however, the position was defendable if the blunder 33 Qb3+? had been avoided. After that
Black was winning (although Fritz found an amazing trap with 34 Rf2! which I hope I would have avoided).
Black finished with a nice "interference" check 35...Rd2+! 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 Bd6
6.Nc3 d4 7.Ne2 Nbd7 8.c3 dxc3 9.bxc3 0–0 10.0–0 Nc5 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Ng3 Nh5 13.h3 Nxg3 14.fxg3 Bh5
15.Be3 Qe7 16.Qe1 f5? This is a bad move that just loses a pawn. I thought 17 exf5 e4 would give Black some
play, but I was mistaken. 17.Bg5? [17.exf5 e4 18.Bg5! Qc7 19.dxe4 Bxg3 20.Qe3 is good for White.] 17...Qd7
18.Nh4 f4? Simply 18...fxe4 gives Black a small edge 19.g4 Bf7 20.Nf3 Nxd3? Another mistake that loses a
pawn. Black develops some initiative, however, when White tries to hang on to it. [Clearly first playing
20...h6! 21.Bh4 Nxd3 is better. Here is one complex variation from Fritz: 22.Bxd3 Bc5+ 23.Kh1 Qxd3
24.Nxe5 Qd6 25.Rxf4 Qxe5 26.Rf5 Qe6 27.Rxc5 Rfe8³] 21.Bxd3 Bc5+ 22.Kh1 Qxd3 23.Nxe5 Qd6 24.Bxf4
Qe7 25.Nxf7 It makes sense to get rid of Black's 2 bishops, but the drawback is that Black quickly develops
unpleasant pressure on the f-file. 25...Rxf7 26.g5? [26.Bg3 Rxf1+ 27.Qxf1 is a good way to return the pawn
27...Qxe4 28.Re1 Qa4 only move because White can play Qc4+ 29.Qe2 and White has a good position]
26...Raf8 27.g3 Qe6 28.Kg2 h6 29.h4 hxg5 30.hxg5 Qg4 31.Qd2 Rd7 32.Qc2 Rfd8 33.Qb3+? Despite
Black's apparent pressure on the White kingside, both 33 Rf3 and 33 Rae1 hold the position, even giving White
a small edge. White has a lost position after the mistaken check. 33...Kh7 34.g6+? This doesn't help White at
all [34.Rh1+? Kg6–+ 35.Rh4? Rd2+ 36.Bxd2 Rxd2+ 37.Kf1 (37.Kh1 Qf3#) 37...Qe2#; 34.Rf2! Fritz surprised
me with this strange move that was White's best chance to hold the game. It sets a remarkable trap: 34...Bxf2?
24
actually loses for Black! 34...Bxf2? (34...Rd1!–+ If White had played 34 Rf2! then 34...Rd1! is the only move
that wins for Black. Hopefully I would have seen that 34...Bxf2? loses. 35.Rxd1 Rxd1 36.Qf7 Bxf2 37.Kxf2
Rd3 38.g6+ Qxg6 39.Qc4 Rd7–+) 35.Rh1+ Kg6 36.Rh4!+- Incredibly, White is winning. The Black queen is
lost now because it is guarding the e6 square against mate, and the Black bishop on f2 shields the White king
from checks. This is a pretty clever concept. Compare with the line above where White plays 34 Rh1+? without
first shielding his king with 34 Rf2, then after 34 Rh1+? Kg6 35 Rh4? Black just mates with 35...Rd2+ ; Also
34.Qc2 Rd2+! 35.Bxd2 Qe2+ 36.Kh3 Rxd2 is the same interference combination that happens in the game,
except now ...Rxd2 really is necessary here because White has not opened the h-file against his king with 34
g6+? 37.Qxd2 else 37...Qh5 mate 37...Qxd2–+] 34...Kxg6 35.Qc2 Rd2+! My only really good move of the
game, a simple interference combination that fouls up the White's queen's guard on the e2-square. 36.Qxd2
[36.Bxd2? Qe2+ 37.Kh3 Rh8+ (The move that I had originally seen, 37...Rxd2, will also win of course but
hopefully I would have just played the mate in 2 with 37...Rh8+ 37...Rxd2 38.Qxd2 Qxd2–+) 38.Bh6 Rxh6#]
36...Rxd2+ 37.Bxd2 Qe2+ 38.Kh3 Qxd2 39.Rf4 Qxc3 40.Raf1 Bd6 41.Rg4+ Kh7 42.Rf7 Qb2 43.Rd7 Be5
44.Rg5 Kh6 45.Rg4 a5 46.Re7 Bf6 47.Re8 Be careful! White threatens 48 Rh8 mate 47...Kh7 48.Rf4 Qxa2
49.e5 Bg5 [49...Qf7 50.Ra8 Qh5+ 51.Kg2] 50.Rg4 Qf7 threatening both ...Qh5+ and ...Qxe8 and therefore
winning more material 51.Rxg5 Qxe8 52.g4 a4 53.Rf5 a3 0–1
EN PASSANT DEADLINES FOR MATERIALS SUBMISSIONS
CLUB MEMBERS: Submit chess materials for publication on the En Passant in WORD DOCUMENT only.
Attach Diagrams or insert the diagrams in word in the exact positions were they belong. DO NOT FORMAT
your word document into columns, do NOT do any type of formatting. Make sure to give your phone number in
your emails. PDF files and other formats are NOT accepted. Materials that cannot fit in one edition will be
published in the following one. Chess materials and chess related materials are very welcome.
Below are the deadlines for submission:
EDITION
March 2016
June 2016
September 2016
December 2016
DEADLINE
Feb. 15
May 16
August 15
Nov. 14
Questions? [email protected]
ERRATA: This Edition is Volume 72, N⁰ 1 (cover).
25
TWO SIMULTANEOUS EXHIBITIONS:
no wins against Simul Givers
We had two very successful Simultaneous Exhibitions in 2016: Melih Ozbek gave a Simul against 12 players on
January 23rd and GM Alexander Shabalov gave a Simul against 20 players on February 6th.
Melih won ten and drew two games. The two draws were against Guillermo Ibarra (Memo) and Antonio
Miralles (from Spain).
GM Alexander Shabalov played against twenty players and won all.
Both Simuls were a success for the Simul Givers as well as for the Pittsburgh Chess Club, which served as a
venue to bring our stars and our players together. Besides, we raised a little money from the events. Below are
some pictures of both Simuls. I would like to sincerely thank both simul Giver, Mr. Melih Ozbek and GM
Alexander Shabalov for helping us make the events possible.
John Barroso, En Passant Editor.
NOTE: CHECK OUR COVER: NEXT SIMUL BY FRANKLIN CHEN: March 19th at Pizza Care on Fifth Ave
MELIH OZBEK’S SIMUL
ALEXANDER SHABALOV’S SIMUL
26
The Pittsburgh Chess Club proudly presents the
56th Golden Triangle Open
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Location:
Pittsburgh Chess Club
5604 Solway St, Suite 209
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Time control: G/30, d5
Registration: 9-9:45am
(Arrivals after 9:45 may have
to take Round 1 bye)
Round times:
10:00-11:15-1:30-2:45
NEW “Plus-Score” Prizes! NEW Scholastic Section!
Format: Four-round Swiss system, in four sections
Championship (open to all) Prize
based on final score:
4.0 = $250
3.5 = $125
3.0 = $65
2.5 = $30
Under 1900
Prize based on final score:
4.0 = $200
3.5 = $100
3.0 = $50
2.5 = $25
Under 1500
Prize based on final score:
4.0 = $160
3.5 = $80
3.0 = $40
2.5 = $20
Scholastic (open to K-12 U1100)
Prize based on final score:
4.0 = $80 + book
3.5 = $40 + book
3.0 = $20
2.5 = $10
EF for top 3 sections: $30 postmarked by 4/23, $40 after, $5 discount for PCC members
EF for Scholastic: $25 postmarked by 4/23, $35 after, $5 discount for PCC members
US Chess Federation membership required – may be purchased at site
Maximum of one ½-point bye allowed – must be declared before Round 2 pairings are made
Entries to: PCC, c/o Golden Triangle Open, 5604 Solway St Suite 209, Pittsburgh PA 15217
Info: (412) 421-1881, [email protected]
Wheelchair accessible
www.pittsburghcc.org
/PittsburghChessClub
/PghChess
27
Tuesday Night at the PCC
17th William M. Byland Memorial
March 8–April 12, 2016
Pittsburgh Chess Club
5604 Solway Street, Suite 209
Pittsburgh PA 15217
Format: 6-round Swiss System tournament, in one section.
Time Control: G/120, d5.
Round times: 7pm each Tuesday night.
Entry Fee: $30 postmarked by 3/1. $35 thereafter and at site. $5 discount to PCC members!
On-Site Registration:
6pm-6:45pm on 3/8. Requests for half-point byes must be made by the end of Round 3. Late
registrants arriving after 6:45 may have to take a half point bye in Round 1.
Prize Fund: $535, 100% guaranteed!
1st place overall
$170
2nd place overall
$120
Top Under 2000
$90
Top Under 1800
$70
Top Under 1600
$50
Top
1400/Unrated
Under
Biggest Upset
$30
$35 PCC certificate for
a future event
Entries to: Pittsburgh Chess Club, Attn: Byland Memorial, 5604 Solway St., Suite 209,
Pittsburgh PA 15217. Make checks payable to Pittsburgh Chess Club. (Refunds must be
requested before start of first round and will be mailed)
Information: www.pittsburghcc.org, 412.421.1881
NO SMOKING – NO COMPUTERS – WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE
28
29
30
31