Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Green Bay Open 2010

01. Santarius, Erik (1)........... WI 2311 W49 W28 W46 W11 W07 5.0

02. Jin, David (2)................ WI 2029 W38 D15 W37 W45 W14 4.5
03. Conant, Matt (5).............. WI 2020 -H- W76 W15 W23 W10 4.5

04. Tutush, Dusan (4)............. WI 2023 W57 W47 W24 L07 W25 4.0
05. Liang, Yingming (7)........... WI 1969 W51 W30 D27 D26 W24 4.0
06. Stein, Josiah (9)............. WI 1938 W39 L08 W57 W33 W26 4.0
07. Allen, Jesse (17)............. WI 1880 W82 W72 W33 W04 L01 4.0
08. Boyer, Kenneth (32)........... WI 1738 W92 W06 L11 W66 W19 4.0
09. Kodali, Suhas (38)............ WI 1692 W65 D12 W22 D44 W43 4.0

10. Pan, Hongkai (3).............. WI 2027 W56 W29 W13 D14 L03 3.5
11. Sachs, Derek (11)............. WI 1913 W41 W16 W08 L01 D13 3.5
12. Gomez, Augustine (15)......... WI 1900 W74 D09 W18 D31 D16 3.5
13. Baumgartner, Chris (23)....... WI 1821 W42 W57 L10 W38 D11 3.5
14. Zhou, Jerry (25).............. WI 1810 W91 W52 W44 D10 L02 3.5
15. Christensen, Wade (26)........ WI 1801 W53 D02 L03 W58 W44 3.5
16. Peel, Arthur (34)............. WI 1730 W63 L11 W60 W68 D12 3.5
17. Roberts, Benjamin (35)........ WI 1726 W83 L19 D52 W79 W45 3.5
18. Brown, Christopher (37)....... WI 1707 W84 D22 L12 W74 W46 3.5

19. Elger, William (10)........... WI 1929 W40 W17 -H- D27 L08 3.0
20. Prenot, Jonathaon (12)........ WI 1911 W59 L33 -H- W72 D35 3.0
21. Hoffman, Guy (13)............. WI 1905 L52 W75 W50 D35 D30 3.0
22. Younkle, Douglas (14)......... WI 1901 W60 D18 L09 W73 D32 3.0
23. Jayne, Ryan (19).............. WI 1838 W70 W36 -H- L03 D37 3.0
24. McKinney, Christopher (20).... WI 1836 W79 W48 L04 W54 L05 3.0
25. Lindquist, Daniel (21)........ WI 1834 W80 L37 W51 W36 L04 3.0
26. Wijetunge, Ivan (22).......... WI 1828 W93 W73 -H- D05 L06 3.0
27. Virkud, Apurva (24)........... WI 1812 W94 W55 D05 D19 -N- 3.0
28. Nietman, Mike (27)............ WI 1800 W69 L01 W40 W42 -N- 3.0
29. Bogenschutz, Tim (28)......... WI 1778 W71 L10 W41 -N- W49 3.0
30. Coons, James (30)............. WI 1770 W81 L05 W59 D49 D21 3.0
31. Grochowski, Robin (31)........ WI 1762 W88 W43 -H- D12 -N- 3.0
32. Liang, Awonder (33)........... WI 1738 W89 L44 -H- W75 D22 3.0
33. Zimmermann, Troy (36)......... WI 1722 W64 W20 L07 L06 W59 3.0
34. Zhang, Tianye (41)............ WI 1630 L76 W69 L42 W70 W71 3.0
35. Fogec, Thomas (42)............ WI 1629 W67 L46 W84 D21 D20 3.0
36. Susens, Rich (44)............. WI 1578 W86 L23 W67 L25 W60 3.0
37. Timm, Andrew (46)............. WI 1567 W87 W25 L02 D46 D23 3.0
38. Azbel, Gregory (49)........... WI 1536 L02 W92 W87 L13 W61 3.0
39. Dreuth, Adam (55)............. WI 1449 L06 L53 W90 W78 W66 3.0
40. Steldt, Richard (56).......... WI 1443 L19 W71 L28 W64 W67 3.0
41. Czeren, Ivan (57)............. WI 1417 L11 W63 L29 W65 W54 3.0
42. Shen, Tianlu (91)............. WI nnnn L13 W86 W34 L28 W55 3.0

43. Endsley, Barry (6)............ WI 2000 W50 L31 D58 W48 L09 2.5
44. Borman, Kelly (8)............. WI 1962 W58 W32 L14 D09 L15 2.5
45. Gleason, Neil (16)............ WI 1883 W61 W54 -H- L02 L17 2.5
46. Jing, Aaron (18).............. WI 1842 W62 W35 L01 D37 L18 2.5
47. Grochowski, Andrew (29)....... WI 1778 W78 L04 -H- W52 -N- 2.5
48. Williams, Rory (43)........... WI 1587 W77 L24 -H- L43 W75 2.5
49. John, Robert (48)............. WI 1539 L01 W88 W76 D30 L29 2.5
50. Hegelmeyer, John (52)......... WI 1474 L43 W80 L21 D53 W68 2.5
51. Mariano, DJ (53).............. WI 1458 L05 W93 L25 W81 D53 2.5
52. Kahl, Joey (59)............... WI 1373 W21 L14 D17 L47 W74 2.5
53. Iakimenko, Victor (84)........ WI nnnn L15 W39 D72 D50 D51 2.5

54. Gorectke, Andrew (39)......... WI 1669 W66 L45 W82 L24 L41 2.0
55. Daven, Jeff (47).............. WI 1553 W90 L27 L66 W88 L42 2.0
56. Ziehms, Steven (50)........... WI 1502 L10 W89 L68 -N- W83 2.0
57. Suri, Shiva (51).............. WI 1484 L04 L13 L06 W90 W79 2.0
58. Pahl, Sandra (54)............. WI 1454 L44 W81 D43 L15 D62 2.0
59. Rasmussen, Kenneth (58)....... WI 1389 L20 W83 L30 W89 L33 2.0
60. Lubinski, Paul (60)........... WI 1373 L22 W64 L16 W84 L36 2.0
61. Mattson, Thomas (62).......... WI 1345 L45 L84 W91 W76 L38 2.0
62. Nickiel, James (65)........... WI 1302 L46 -H- L75 W77 D58 2.0
63. Azbel, Joseph (66)............ WI 1141 L16 L41 L89 W92 W87 2.0
64. Gonzalez, Miguel (68)......... WI 1079 L33 L60 W80 L40 W88 2.0
65. Henning, Daniel (70).......... WI 1033 L09 L74 W69 L41 W89 2.0
66. Feldman, Daniel (71).......... WI 1008 L54 W94 W55 L08 L39 2.0
67. Hegelmeyer, John W (74)....... WI 0859 L35 W91 L36 W82 L40 2.0
68. Moran, Michael (77)........... WI 0729 L73 W78 W56 L16 L50 2.0
69. Rank, Nathan (90)............. WI nnnn L28 L34 L65 W86 W85 2.0
70. Groustra, Sean (83)........... WI nnnn L23 L87 W85 L34 W84 2.0
71. DeDene, Christopher (82)...... WI nnnn L29 L40 W86 W87 L34 2.0

72. Sperbeck, Tony (40)........... WI 1649 W85 L07 D53 L20 -N- 1.5
73. Delaney, Greg (45)............ WI 1574 W68 L26 -H- L22 -N- 1.5
74. Liang, Adream (61)............ WI 1372 L12 W65 -H- L18 L52 1.5
75. Rajendra, Avinash (64)........ WI 1312 -H- L21 W62 L32 L48 1.5
76. Cunningham, William (73)...... WI 0947 W34 L03 L49 L61 D81 1.5
77. Shelobolin, Filipp (75)....... WI 0854 L48 L79 W94 L62 D78 1.5
78. Zierer, Grant (94)............ WI nnnn L47 L68 W83 L39 D77 1.5
79. Williams, Wendell (93)........ WI nnnn L24 W77 -H- L17 L57 1.5
80. Sutter, Selena (92)........... WI nnnn L25 L50 L64 D93 W90 1.5
81. Jin, Suhong (85).............. WI nnnn L30 L58 W93 L51 D76 1.5

82. Ballantyne, Drew (63)......... WI 1322 L07 W85 L54 L67 -N- 1.0
83. Cunningham, Patrick (67)...... WI 1122 L17 L59 L78 W94 L56 1.0
84. Breuer, Michael (69).......... WI 1066 L18 W61 L35 L60 L70 1.0
85. Buck, Finn (72)............... WI 0998 L72 L82 L70 W91 L69 1.0
86. Breuer, Ryan (76)............. WI 0807 L36 L42 L71 L69 W94 1.0
87. Jing, Daniel (78)............. WI 0684 L37 W70 L38 L71 L63 1.0
88. Amaro, Alex (81).............. WI nnnn L31 L49 W92 L55 L64 1.0
89. Abrams, Joseph (80)........... WI nnnn L32 L56 W63 L59 L65 1.0

90. Slavney, Daniel (79).......... WI 0359 L55 -H- L39 L57 L80 0.5
91. Mora, Oscar (89).............. WI nnnn L14 L67 L61 L85 D92 0.5
92. Mallela, Teja (88)............ WI nnnn L08 L38 L88 L63 D91 0.5
93. Kline, Jeff (86).............. WI nnnn L26 L51 L81 D80 -N- 0.5

94. Mallela, Lakshman (87)........ WI nnnn L27 L66 L77 L83 L86 0.0

After playing pretty well the whole tournament, I blundered horribly and turned a win into a loss in the final game. My opponent blundered first with 29. Qg4? , when after 29....Rxd6, I am winning instead, I played 29...Rad8??? (We were both in bad time trouble)






This is the adjourned game from round one. The White player, Tutush Dusan (2023) won.

There were 94 players, about 3 short of the all time high.
  1. 2311 Santarius Erik
  2. 2029 Jin David
  3. 2027 Pan Hongkai

I wonder if WI is the only place in the country where adjournments have not been abolished. With time controls of 40/100, 30/60, SD/30 a game could last more than 6 hours.

I heard of a story a few years ago where a player had taken a 3rd round bye, but had to come back after the 3rd round (around 1 am) to conclude his 2 adjourned games from round 1 & 2!

I finished with 2-1=1
  1. Win Kline, Jeff (unrated)
  2. Win Delaney, Greg (1574)
  3. bye
  4. Draw Yingming, Liang (
    1969)
  5. Loss Stein, Josiah (1965)

Year/# of Players/Winner(s)

27 comments:

  1. First round

    GUY G HOFFMAN lost but won in the 2nd

    ReplyDelete
  2. Any results after round 3?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How are the Southwest chess club players doing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ivan, can you snap a photo of the crosstable and post? PS, interesting adjourned position that Dusan had.... what was the final result?

    thanks! Allen

    ReplyDelete
  5. Allen Jesse & Santarius only two on 4.0

    ReplyDelete
  6. How did finish?

    Any final results available?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I left in disgust, didn't check any results :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ivan, here is my take on your game.

    Tactically, you are probably already an Expert except for that one move, not seeing that the pawn is en-prise - I know when you say bad time-trouble, it's probably really bad, so it looks like that situation alone cost you the game.

    Yes, this game was exciting, but positionally it left a lot to be desired, and that part of your game is probably also the thing hurting you most on the clock.

    ...Qd5. Instead, why not ..Nd5 and ..b5? Game is positionally just about won then, IMHO. Not sure, but I think you'd still have time to get in Nbd7-f6 if needed.

    ...Qd5, okay, getting the opponent's king to move there is almost a non-factor since the king almost always plays to b1 in 0-0-0 openings. Giant pawn-stopper, not a good role for the queen, and she is not transferring(to early to anyway) from there to anywhere else. I would instinctively want to keep my queen on dark squares in this position as well.

    Move 14...Qb5, what says you didn't feel this was a poor move even when you made it(?) If you had all the time in the world there, what would you do? I would want to play something lke ..Rac8, ..Qd8, ..Nac7, ..Ncd5, ..Qe7, now you can continue your attack. Just something more positional is all I am saying.

    After that point, I could see why you would get into time-trouble, needing to make all those contortions just to stay in the game, it's amazing to think after all that that you still should have won it. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. On move 17. Why can't White play Qg3 and Bh6 right away instead of d5? after ...Nh5 ...g6 ...Ng7, White has even more control along the e-file.

    Regardless of how you choose to defend there, d5 costed White a tempo and allowed your position to unwind some more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Ivan - I was your unrated opponent in round 1. I enjoyed our game and was a keen observer of your following rounds. My greatest appreciation (since this was my first tournament) was sitting down with you shortly after our game and you illustrating the computer analysis.

    As this was my first tournament (and I played as a rookie is expected to play) I really did enjoy the event and look forward to playing in many more in the future. I hope our paths cross again.

    Best wishes...

    Jeff Kline - Round 1

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello Jeff,

    Nice to meet you.

    Do you have the final results of the event.

    Thank you
    Ivan

    ReplyDelete
  12. I do - can I e-mail them to you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Look me up on Facebook and shoot me an e-mail address.

    ReplyDelete
  14. my email is

    iwijetunge@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. Drawing Yingming Liang is a very good result no question. He is more expert than class A I would say.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ivan,

    Your game with Stein was played like an expert. There was a very pretty tactical sequence starting at move 20 that culminated with you getting a better position. If you don't blow the rook and simply take the d6 pawn, then after Rd6 Rd6 Qd6 Qe4 Rd8 you are simply a pawn up. It might be difficult to win the resulting endgame because of the presence of heavy pieces but the lion's share of chances rest with you.

    It's the simple blunders that do you in.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What's the next event that you'll be playing in, Ivan?

    -Tony

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://www.guildtechs.com/swo/

    Ivan

    ReplyDelete
  19. Josiah Stein here. I stumbled on this game and would very much like to make some off the cuff comments. This is a very difficult game to make off the cuff comments on, in fact a couple of these comments by linexguy, to which I mean no disrespect, have me completely confused.

    Ivan, you played a very good game and I have nothing but the highest respect for your play. I thought you made several very good decisions throughout the game. A couple of questions for you.

    First, have you actually seen some of this before? I thought I was playing an unknown pawn sacrifice in order to gain a complicated position. Is 7.Qe2!? analyzed anywhere? Is it just bad?

    Second, regarding the exchange of blunder in the end. We weren't in THAT bad of time pressure. We both should have seen it. My opinion is that it was a combination of the fact that I had the initiative the whole game the more natural move was defense with 29...Rad8 and not 29...Rxd6! and chess fatigue. In fact nobody I have showed this game to has immediately spotted this blunder either. These things happen to even the best players. The best way to correct this type of blunder, I suppose, is to spend 6 hour tactical exercise sessions to build up our endurance.

    Third, 9...Nd5?! intending ...b5 is not a better plan positionally. 9...Nd5 10.Bd2 intending Qf2 (or Qe1) with plans of Bd3 and Ne5 gives white a superior position due to the bishop pair and more space.

    Fourth, I don't understand the criticism of 14...Qb5. I also don't think it was a great move, but the solution from Linexguy is not concrete and leads to positions that are better for white.

    Fifth, on move 17 I don't believe white can play Qg3 followed by Bh6. 17.Qg3?! cxd4 18.Bh6 Nh5! and black is superior.

    Sixth, the tactical sequence starting on move 21 led to a better position for white, not black. Black is fighting for the draw. In general, I believe that white was slightly better to complicated equal almost the whole game until the end blunder. Perhaps black missed an opportunity with 18...Nxd5 to gain the better position but I am not 100% convinced of this yet.

    Finally, I am hoping that Ivan will see this and we can continue to analyze this very interesting game. In my opinion computers will not initially understand it and it will take some creativity to analyze.


    Best regards,

    Josiah Stein

    ReplyDelete
  20. Josiah,

    What do you mean "I am hoping that Ivan will see this" :)

    Although you have compensation for the pawn, I thought that your k-side needed time to unravel. I was confident that I could reach the end game a pawn up.

    I think I should have gone for an immediate pawn thrust on th q-side after you castled.

    I think that th exchanged you initiated left Black in a better position. I am up a pawn and your advanced passer is easilly blocked.

    I think we both played well until the mutual errors. You are right, after spending the whole game in defensive mode, I missed taking the pawn. The main reason is that I didn't expect you to err :)

    Best wishes

    Ivan

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ivan,

    Good to see you noticed my comment on this post. I was afraid that my comment would be buried in the archives. Good to see that's not the case.

    You mentioned after the game your idea for immediate queenside pawn thrusts, but I am curious what specifically you are referring to.

    A big part of white's compensation lies in the fact that he has an unopposed dark squared bishop. This, I believe, limits the normal counterplay black has in this position as his breaks ...c5 or ...e5 are made more difficult, or unadventageous in many positions.

    I guess one thought is 10...Ne4 11.Be1!? (my intended move to preserve the bishop) 11...b5. Is this what you are referring to? I am curious what your queenside idea is.

    My opinion of the final position before the blunder is that white is very slightly better. The advanced pawn can be easily blocked, but black has much less space. Black shouldn't be able to convert the extra pawn because he can never leave the defense of the advanced d-pawn.

    Also, 21.Nd7 was not the best move I am finding out, and the more routine 21.Ng4!? leads to better versions of the endgame for white.

    Josiah

    ReplyDelete
  22. Josiah is correct in stating that white is slightly better in the major piece endgame. Black's pieces are forced to defend, while white's can attack. The passed pawn is huge in major piece endgames, and material count very rarely matters.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey Ivan! I've decided to create a new blog to document my chess adventures. Check it out - http://tonyschessblog.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete