Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Waukesha CC 4 Round G/90

36 Players

USCF Results

Final cross table

Rnd 4
1-0 Coons(3.0) vs Krause(3.0)
1-0 Kohlenberg(2.5) vs Reese(3.0)
1-0 Williams(2.0) vs Smith(2.5)
1-0 Wijetunge(2.0) vs Zimmermann (2.0)

My last game (at least for a while) in WI was memorable since I got to play Rc8 in the following position:
Black just attacked my knight on f3, instead of doing something about it, I sacAfter Rc8
Wjetunge(1848) vs Zimmermann(1676) June 3, 2009
1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 Nf6 3.Nf3 e6 4.e3 Be7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.0-0 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.Nbd2 Bb7 9.c3 Nbd7 10.Rc1 c5 11.Re1 Rc8 12.Bb1 Re8 13.Qc2 b5 14.Ne5 Nf8 15.Ndf3 cxd4 16.exd4 b4 17.Qb3 a5 18.a3 Ba8 19.cxb4 Qb6 20.b5 g5 21.Bg3 Nh5 [21...g4 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Bh4 gxf3 24.Qxf3] 22.a4 Nxg3 23.hxg3 f6 24.Ng6 Rxc1 25.Rxc1 g4 26.Rc8 [26.Qe3 gxf3 27.Qxh6] 26...Rxc8 27.Nxe7+ Kg7 28.Nxc8 Qc7 29.Qc2 Qxc2 30.Bxc2 gxf3 31.gxf3 Nd7 32.Kf1 e5 33.Bf5 Nf8 34.Ke2 e4 35.Ke3 Kf7 36.fxe4 dxe4 37.Bxe4 Bxe4 38.Kxe4 Nd7 39.Kd5 Ke8 40.Kc6 Kd8 41.Nb6 Nf8 42.d5 Ng6 43.Nc4 f5 44.b6 Kc8 45.Nd6+ Kb8 46.Nxf5 Ne5+ 47.Kb5 Nd3 48.d6 Ne5 49.Nxh6 Kb7 50.b4 axb4 51.Kxb4 Kxb6 52.a5+ Kc6 53.f4 Nd3+ 54.Kc3 Nc5 55.Nf5 Nd7 56.Kc4 Nf6 57.Kd4 Nd7 58.g4 Nf8 59.g5 Kb5 60.Ne7 Kxa5 61.f5 Kb5 62.g6 Nd7 63.Nd5

Rnd 3

Many upsets today!
1-0 A. Krause vs W. Williams
1-0 G. Reese Jr. vs C. McCutchin
0-1 T. Zimmermann vs J. Coons
0-1 Russ Montney vs J. Kohlenberg
1-0 J. Smith vs S. Garvin
1/2 R. Hayes vs R. Lauzums
0-1 Pranav Kulkarni vs Ivan Wijetunge
Rnd 2 (Reese Jr vs Wijetunge)
I obtained a very good position, but bad time management did me in.
Here I played Bd5 and White replied Ne1. Instead the best move for Black is Bxh3

Crosstable here

Waukesha Chess Club

58 comments:

  1. Pranav should have won that game, he had a winning endgame

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hayes is probably playing around 1400.

    Even the USCF does not know how he got his 2100 floor!

    C.K.

    ReplyDelete
  3. was williams black in the first round?

    ReplyDelete
  4. C.K. although Hayes may not play every game or even the majority of them like a 2100, show him some respect, he is still capable of making some damn good moves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Anon, I don't think that's the answer he was looking for

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hays plays all games like a 1300!, just look at the ELO results, (When they are out)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not sure why people feel the need to comment on Ray Hayes current playing strength. So what if his current playing strength is less than his ratings floor. He obviously still enjoys playing chess. He was one of the summer lecturers at the SWCC last summer, so he was trying to give back. He seems to enjoy analyzing his games with his opponents.

    I commend him for continuing to play, as the easiest thing for him to do would be to retire from tournament play. So back off and let him enjoy the simple pleasure of chess.

    Scott V

    ReplyDelete
  8. The amount of disrespectful comments directed at Ray and often others is unbelievable. Chess is first and foremost a game, and one of the most beautiful things about it is its universal appeal. Most of us want to improve but really, there is almost no correlation between playing strength and enjoyment of the game. So let's enjoy the game and show our fellow chess players some respect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't have a problem as long as he says before the lecture that his current strength is 1300. He does not do that.

    It's misleading to listen to what you think is a 2100 player when he is not.

    Also how did he get a floor of 2100? Don't you care?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyway,

    There is nothing disrespectful about stating facts!

    C.K.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ivan, have you played young Reese as Black before? Do you remember the opening used or result? I think he has stopped using 1. d4 and is now back to 1. e4.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have played him once as White and won

    ReplyDelete
  13. So what opening was played and were there any other critical points or is this the position you feel caused you to lose?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm curious as to what White's move prior to this position was. My instinct is that white should have been trying to attack h6 with his B+Q with the idea of bringing his N to g5 after to complete the sorti.
    What the heck is his Q doing over on the a-file? I can also see a Bf4, Rc7 attack for white. Again, that doesn't require his Q to be so far out of play.

    ReplyDelete
  15. hey ivan do you have round 3 pairings?

    -Jake

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Jake, congrats on making expert!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I guess there were some upsets. Any news on what they put in the water out there?

    ReplyDelete
  18. cyanide and lead most likely

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, the battle for 1st place is a U1600 and U1800. Wonder when the last time that happened.
    Jordan Smith is really coming along in his game.
    Maybe this is the signaling a changing of the guard in WI chess.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oops, I didn't see your possible pairings, I thought Reese would be playing Krause. I didn't realize Coons also had 3.0. I'm an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Predictions:
    1-0 Coons(3.0) vs Krause(3.0)
    1-0 Kohlenberg(2.5) vs Reese(3.0)
    1-0 Williams(2.0) vs Smith(2.5)

    4.0 Coons
    3.5 Kohleberg
    3.0 Williams
    a few more threes

    ReplyDelete
  22. All the juniors at WCC are coming along. Reese,Smith,Zimmermann,both Harders, and Kulkarni.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey, j/w does anyone know what Reese plays against either e4 or d4?

    -Jake

    ReplyDelete
  24. QGD against d4 and Sicilian against e4. He is pretty good against d4. What are you leaning towards Jake?

    ReplyDelete
  25. what kind of sicilian

    ReplyDelete
  26. anyone know wha mccutchin plays as white?

    ReplyDelete
  27. does reese play 2. d6, g6, or nc6?

    ReplyDelete
  28. 2.d6.
    I would look for a sharp line that threatens early. He always seems to be behind in development in the games that I have seen.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hey Jake you seem too concerned about much lower rated player!

    ReplyDelete
  30. haha

    all those posts weren't me.

    -Jake

    ReplyDelete
  31. and Reese is obviously a good player, so i'm not going to take him lightly

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jake, was that last posting you?
    You didn't sign it with -Jake, like the others.
    I'd recommend showing up 75 minutes late, you should be able to win a G15 against a 1600.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Congrats on a win Ivan. It is a cool tactic to finish your chess in WI. I wish you the best of luck in Texas and hope you get to 2000.

    ReplyDelete
  34. By the way that's not a rook sac, that's a very simple combination ......

    ReplyDelete
  35. It may be a temporary sac, but it is still a sac. When was the last time you put a rook where it could be taken, right after your opponent attacked one of your minor pieces with a pawn?

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is a pleasing combination that forces the win of material based on taking advantage of overloaded and/or unprotected pieces, but in no way, shape or form can it be considered a "sac".

    ReplyDelete
  37. By the way, why did he not play 26...Bd8 or am I missing something obvious?

    ReplyDelete
  38. [26...Bd8 27.Rxa8 gxf3 28.Qe3]

    I used the following definition for a sacrifice, what definition are you using?

    Sacrifice is the intentional offering of a piece or a pawn to capture intending to gain some advantage. You will also see the term "sham sacrifice," because a sacrifice is intended to be a false "gift" to the opposing player.
    Giving up material for compensation (some advantage) is the preeminent theme in sacrificing in chess.

    A player sacrifices material, but intends to get it back, and/or gain significant other advantage such as better development, positional superiority, and/or mate or threaten mate shortly if the opponent takes - or by force of the sacrificing move or pawn advance must take - the material offered up for sacrifice.

    ReplyDelete
  39. John R. Becker, you seem to be a little argumentative. It was a nice "tactic" and let's leave it at that. Yes, 26....Bd8 negates it but that was not how the game played on, so it was nice for Ivan.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes, of course it was a very nice move by Ivan, all credit to him, with moves and vision like that he'll soon be an expert if not higher. I very much hope he accomplishes his goal. Please realize that I'm not trying to be argumentative, just realistic about what constitutes an actual sacrifice.
    To answer "anonymous": I'm not using some non-sensical "definition". I am using something called "understanding". The move Rc8 is the first move of a combination that wins material in all lines. It is not, I repeat, not, a "sacrifice". Should I type this slower to help with the "understanding"?
    At least Black doesn't immediately lose a piece after Bd8. He still has a lost position but at least there is some fight left.

    ReplyDelete
  41. A sacrifice means you lose material ... Rd8 doesn't lose material

    ReplyDelete
  42. It depends on the definition.

    By the definition above it is a sacrifice.

    BRUZ

    ReplyDelete
  43. They are waiting to resolve a membership issue.

    ReplyDelete
  44. hey ivan i noticed you uncorked the ruth opening against zimmerman a dastardly devilish way to avoid theory did he lose his breath and almost faint when you did so? i would have lol btw i love that move 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 GASP!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I used to play the Trompowski.

    I also like to play a reversed Slav with a move in hand.

    ReplyDelete
  46. No, he didn't lose his breath.

    ReplyDelete
  47. ivan i just realized something your opening choice against zimmermann happened to be even obscurer than the ruth opening ..which occurs after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 i just found out its called the levitsky attack instead which i like better taking advantage of the missplayed move order 1.d4 d5?! (lol) 2.Bg5! (daring black to play the mindless Nf6! (which zimmerman did!) after which i'd probably exchange the bishop for knight doubling black's pawns and making him gulp. anyway excellent opening choice

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ivan, your results on the last WCC event are not in tie-break order, are they? Do you have it in tie-break order?

    ReplyDelete
  49. 1.d4 d5
    2.Bg5 Nf6
    3.Bxf6 exf6 Black is fine here, he has both bishops open and controls e5


    H.T.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hey JAKE! Tell me where you got your game?

    ReplyDelete