Saturday, February 22, 2014


Standings here

USCF Results here

King's Indian: Bhagyadhar, Karthekiyan, Ivan, Abhyudhaya
I had a great time. The tournament conditions were first rate. 

Our team finished with 2.5/5.0

I went 3-2=0
  3. Loss 2046 ARSHAQ SALEEM
  4. Win 1867 KYLE J MILES
This is my round 1 loss

I am doing good here. The endgame was probably drawn. (At least that's what GM Gurevich told me) but we were both down to about 2 min each, when I made the horrible 40...f6??

Round 1 Game here

Round 5 Game here

Karthikeyan's position against GM Gurevich in round  1 (0-1)

Round 1

Karthikeyan had what looked like good attacking chances against Pete Karagianis in round 3, but could not hold the ending. (0-1)

Round 2  

Karthikeyan's exchange sac in round 4 vs AYDIN TURGUT (0-1)
Let's see I got me some single pawns, double pawns and even triple pawns! (ROBERT LONCAREVIC vs GEORGE KRASNOPOLSKIY 1-0 Round 4)


  1. Ivan,if you can't beat opponents with a 2000+ rating you will never make 2000 yourself...
    Look at your results: 2 losses against both 2000+ opponents....and it is pointless talking about a "theoretical drawn endgame"....when the starting position in chess is already equal....
    The win against a 1100 rated player doesn't count BTW....
    Why not starting to hunt down 2000+ some opening prep and focus on the strong players;
    in your first game theory escaped you apparently already on move 5.....why not 5...Be7 and a nice Philidor according to Seel's book on the Antoshin variation; after 5...Be7 he writes:
    " The above is the main position for my book. At first glance perhaps, Black's position looks somewhat passive, but it is very flexible: for example, the second player can:
    1. play d5 at a favourable moment and immediately look for counterplay in the centre.
    2. play 0-0, Re8, Bf8, Nbd7, N c5 and develop some pressure against the pawn on e4.
    3. set up some pressure on the queenside by c6, b5 or a6, b5.
    4. chase the white knight away from d4 by c5 and then play N c6. (You often get active piece play as compensation for the weakening of the d5-square.)
    5. follow up a possible Bc4 by White with Nxe4 (winning the piece back by d5).
    As well as the aforementioned plans, the following factors speak in favour of the line of the Philidor Defence we shall consider in this book:
    I. What is more important than pure theoretical knowledge is, generally speaking, knowing the correct ideas and setups..."

    Do some serious study and be the predator next time and not the prey....


    1. I will post the round 5 game where I did follow theory.

      GM Gurevich said he thought Black was better after 23..Qf3 in round 1

    2. IMO it's relatively irrelevant what a GM (or a computer...) says after the's what you see for yourself during the game what counts.

  2. I find BRUZ's comments interesting, if not completely accurate. Of course, u can make a 2000 rating without ever playing an expert. And losing both games against experts is only a 2 game sample! However, in your history, u do have a habit of only scoring 25% against players rated 20xx. So, for now, if u just want to attain a 2000 rating, then u shud avoid playing experts like the plaque!! However, it does seem somewhat shameful for u to make expert, when pitted against other experts, u r pretty bad. Back in July of 2000, i played 2 sections up, and as a 1728 rated player, in the first round I got a draw in 19 moves against a 2018, then a draw in 16 moves against a 2151, then in the third round I beat a 2087, and then beat a 2089 in round 4! I wimped out and took a 0 move draw against an 1880 in the final round. So, the Expert section was won by an "A" player, and I, rated only 1728, tied for second and third! After that, I decided I only wanted to play Experts, and mostly played in class tournaments in the Expert section. U cud do that, but with your present opening repertoire, I don't think it wud work out very well 4 u!

  3. Wow! I can't believe that you r now calling your blog "getting to 2100." What happened?

    1. Mesgan Amanov suggested that. Makes sense to me. Nothing wrong with shooting higher.

      I also had a fluke of an event on 2013-01-06, where I beat 3 experts, but that's neither here nor there.

      Openings make a big difference at the top level, not at the class level.

  4. Getting to 2100....didn't notice that....but that's the right spirit!

  5. " it is pointless talking about a "theoretical drawn endgame"....when the starting position in chess is already equal...."

    Well there is a big difference between the starting position, and having a drawn position after 40 moves against a 2173 player.

    BTW, DAVID TIANJIAN PENG hit Master at this event (went from 2171 ->2221, 14 years old)

    1. Ask Nakamura about a "theoretically winning position" against a 2890 player and you will get my point.
      if you just end up in a good position without noticing it (maybe even by chance) and/or not being able to win or even draw it against your opponent then the objectively "good position" is actually not a subjectively "good position" for you! (think maybe also about Tal's objectively "bad" sacrifices!) - chess is not so much about making good moves but rather about being able to evaluate correctly the positions that are else can you make a good move unless you can evaluate the position as "good" after making that move???


  6. I am saying that openings make a big difference at the "Expert" level. Hence, my success against them! That tournament I described back in July 2000, there is a reason i got draws in just 19 and 16 moves against a 2018 and a 2151. It was almost all book 4 me! I play gambits! The draw in 19 moves was a Gambit. and the wins against the 2087 and 2089 were both Gambits!! It even goes beyond that I play gambits. I play Gambits that almost nobody in the entire country play, Therefore, almost nobody is ready for them!!

  7. I would say the openings played a very small part in my losses to experts.

    Statistically I should score 36% against people rated 100 higher than me, I am am 25%

    In 2014
    Losses : 2046, 2126, 2145, 2171, 2214
    Wins: 1121, 1741, 1779, 1795, 1867, 1900

  8. U don't understand. People say, "I didn't lose because of the opening, I got a playable middlegame, but later I blundered." I never want to get a playable middlegame, that's when I lose! When my openings work, I am winning before I am out of book, or sometimes get a draw by repitition before I am out of book, or at least get a extremely drawable endgame by the time I am out of book. Other times I get such an overwhelming position out of the opening, that it is easy even for a weak player like myself to crush an Expert! U don't have to settle for a playable middlegame. That is when the better player usually wins, and apparently, when u play Experts, that isn't you!

  9. "When my openings work, I am winning before I am out of book,"

    What that really means is that your opponent blundered!

  10. Technically, but World Champion Anatoly Karpov fell for an opening trap in a real game! There r traps that have worked against many strong masters. One example is a trap that Bobby Fischer was quickly winning against world class player named Samuel Reshevsky! The question u have to ask yourself is, do u want to win more games. I showed an opening trap to Master Tam Nguyen, and his opinion was that it would work against most Grandmasters! But, then the Grandmaster could tell himself he lost because he blundered. U don't think he wud think he shud know the opening better?

  11. Ivan,
    I think you lost because you were in time pressure. I agree with you that the result of most amateur games is not determined by the opening. This will be less true if you play gambits, but that is not your style. I suggest you keep track of how you use time in games [record the time per move] and see where you can \be more efficient and save time for critical positions. Certainly you would not play f6 with adequate time on your clock.
    Richard Reich

  12. Richard

    I had a good feeling when I played 21 ...c5 especially after he played 24 Qxc4. Later analysis shows that had I played Qxf3 instead of exchanging queens, White would be in some trouble, because of the exposed king and down material.

    Do you plan on playing anytime soon?

    There is a nice event coming up in St. Louis March 14-16 or better yet this event at the Million Dollar chess club

    April 11-13 Bill Wright Saint Louis Open

    1. No plans to play. I have to work almost every other weekend, and am exhausted when I get a few days off. Trying to get my tactics rating on over 2200. I made it to 2196 once!

  13. Hi, This is Chris Baumgartner using Dean's computer. Wasn't the point of calling this blog getting to 2000 to represent achieving a milestone in your chess career? 2100 is also, but not the same. Change is back to getting to 2000, that made more sense. 2000 represents something more important than 2100.

  14. Chris again. I also agree with Dean. Not believing the opening is important is silly. Many people believe the opening isn't important because they play insipid openings! They would never hope to get an advantage. I understand your style and don't expect you to change completely, but there is information out there, like Dean said, that can help you gain an advantage out of the opening. And this isn't to say only by your opponent blundering. Try new ideas, don't just play the same thing over and over and expect different results. Keep your opponent guessing. Military strategy proves that surprise is a very important factor in battle.

  15. Comment on openings:
    At ur level it's enough to know a few more moves than ur opponent, that's all. So u don't need to study heavy stuff and also i would not advise to play crazy opening moves.
    That's why for example the aljechin defense against 1e4 is so successful , because the black player surely always knows more than white at ur level and white is trapped from move one....against 1d4 at ur level the benko gambit does the same trick, also the tarrasch defense ....for example i remember abby marshall raising to fame only because of playing the tarrasch with black (she had studied schillers 'complete defense against qp openings', that was enough)...worth a try and there are better books out now on the tarrasch....
    i wouldn't recommend crazy stuff but i also remember adithya balasubramanian playing 1g4 with amazing success at 2200 level....however he's a good tactician....

  16. I agree most times under master level one is out of book by move 5 or so.

    So BRUZ, what was your peak rating?

  17. Seriously, move 5 or so! In my games I often go 12 to 16 moves before I have to think! Occasionally even to move 20!! I share your curiosity of who Bruz is. What is Bruz actual full real name and rating history? Listening to this Bruz?