Artwork © Ashley P. 🌻 (ashlemonie)
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Monday, October 24, 2022
Late Afternoon
Thoughts suddenly scatter and hide. Late in the afternoon, just before dusk, as the sun is setting, and the lights come on to illuminate the Tepidarium at Florence’s Horticulture Garden, a grand Liberty-style greenhouse designed by Giacomo Roster in 1880. |
Sunday, October 23, 2022
G8
The 2nd World Fischerandom Chess Championship is set to start on October 25, 2022 in Reykjavík, Iceland. The final tournament is divided into two stages: a two-group stage followed by the knockout stage. Time control is 25 minutes for the first 30 moves, plus 5 minutes for the rest of the game, plus 5 seconds per move starting from move 31. The finalists are (in alphabetical order): Nodirbek Abdusattorov, Matthias Blübaum, Magnus Carlsen, Vladimir Vasilyevich Fedoseev, Hjörvar Steinn Grétarsson, Hikaru Nakamura, Ian Alexandrovich Nepomniachtchi, and Wesley So. For further details and information, click here. |
Gone But Still Here
State and anomie. Considerations on the antichrist
Giorgio Agamben, Quodlibet, October 19, 2022
The term “antichrist” (antichristos) appears in the New Testament only in the first and second letters of John. The context is certainly eschatological (paidia, eschate hora estin, vulg. filioli, novissima hora est, “little children, it is the last hour”), and the term significantly also appears in the plural: “as you have heard that antichrist comes, even now there are become many antichrists”. No less crucial is that the apostle defines the last hour as the “now (nyn)” in which he himself finds himself: “antichrist comes (erchetai, simple present)”. Soon afterwards it is stated more clearly, if there was any need, that the antichrist “is now in the world (nyn en to kosmoi estin)”. It is good not to forget this eschatological context of the antichrist, if it is true — as Peterson, and Barth before him, never tire of remembering — that the last moment of human history is inseparable from Christianity (“a Christianity” — writes Barth — “which is not absolutely and totally eschatology has absolutely and totally nothing to do with Christ”). The antichrist is for John the one who in the last hour “denies that Jesus is the Christ” (that is, the Messiah) and antichrists are therefore the “many” who, like him, “went out from us, but were not of us”, which suggests, not without ambiguity, that the antichrist comes out of the bosom of the ekklesia, but he doesn’t really belong to it. As such, he is repeatedly called “deceiver” (planos, literally “the one who misleads”, vulg. seductor).
However, the exegesis of fathers and theologians on the antichrist did not concentrate for centuries on the letters of John, but on the second Pauline epistle to the Thessalonians. Even though the term does not appear in it, the enigmatic character that the letter presents as “the man of anomie” (ho anthropos tes anomias) and the “son of perdition” (ho uios tes apoleias) has already been identified by Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Tertullian and then by Augustine with the antichrist. Indeed, Paul says of him, whom he also calls as “lawless” (anomos), that he “opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God”. The antichrist is a mundane power (a tradition identified him with a revived Nero) which tries to imitate and counterfeit the kingdom of Christ in the time of the end.
In the letter to the Thessalonians, however, the lawless man is placed in close relationship with another enigmatic figure, the katechon, that which holds back (also in third-person form: “the one who holds back”). That which holds back is “the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ and our reunion with him”: the context of the letter is, therefore, as eschatological as in the letter of John (a little earlier, the apostle evokes “the just judgment of God... at the revelation of the Lord Jesus with the angels of his power”). Already in the time of Augustine, this power which holds back the final advent of Christ was identified with the Roman Empire (which, in Augustine’s words, was never explicitly named by Paul “lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal”) or with the Roman church itself, as John’s letter seemed to suggest, mentioning the antichrists who “shall come out of us”. In any case, whether it is the Roman Empire or the church, the power which holds back is that of an institution founded on a stable law or consitution (anticipating our notion of “state”, Tertullian says: status romanus, which in his day meant “the steadiness of the Roman Empire”).
It is crucial to understand the relationship between the power which holds back and “the man of lawlessness”. It has sometimes been interpreted as a conflict bewtween two powers, in which the lawless one or the antichrist “takes out of the way” the power which holds back. The expressionek mesou genetai (“until he that now holds back is taken out of the way”) does not in any way imply that it is the man of anomie who does it: as the translation of the Vulgate (donec de medio fiat) suggests, it is the very power which holds back (be it the empire or the church) to take itself out of the way. The immediately following text is, in this sense, perfectly clear: “and then the lawless one will be revealed”. The relationship between the institutional power of the katechon and the man of lawlessness is the succession between two mundane powers, one of which takes itself out of the way and is replaced — or passes through — into the other. This is, in Paul’s words, “the mystery of anomie that is already at work” and which eventually finds its unveiling, almost as if, as the term “mystery” seems to suggest, the “lawsless one” exhibited finally in full light the truth of the preceding power.
If this is true, then the letter contains a doctrine on the fate of any insitutional power which must not be overlooked. According to this doctrine, in the end, firmly founded institutional power necessarily gives way to a condition of anomie, in which the constitutionally founded sovereign is replaced by a “lawless” sovereign, who arbitrarily exercises his government. Hence the letter contains a message that concerns us closely, because it is just such a “mystery of anomie” that we are living through. State power founded on laws and the so-called democratic constitutions has been transforming — through an unstoppable process which began long ago, but that only now comes to its ultimate crisis — into an anomic condition, in which the law is replaced by executive power decrees and measures, and the state of emergency becomes the normal form of government. It remains — it is good not to forget — that the letter states that once the “lawless one” shall reveal himself through his own power, “the Lord shall slay him by the breath of his mouth and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming”. This means that what remains for us to think about in the apparently dead-end condition we are going through is the form of a human community that escapes both the “power which holds back” with its apparent institutional stability and the emergency anomie into which it fatally converts itself.
Giorgio Agamben, Quodlibet, October 19, 2022
The term “antichrist” (antichristos) appears in the New Testament only in the first and second letters of John. The context is certainly eschatological (paidia, eschate hora estin, vulg. filioli, novissima hora est, “little children, it is the last hour”), and the term significantly also appears in the plural: “as you have heard that antichrist comes, even now there are become many antichrists”. No less crucial is that the apostle defines the last hour as the “now (nyn)” in which he himself finds himself: “antichrist comes (erchetai, simple present)”. Soon afterwards it is stated more clearly, if there was any need, that the antichrist “is now in the world (nyn en to kosmoi estin)”. It is good not to forget this eschatological context of the antichrist, if it is true — as Peterson, and Barth before him, never tire of remembering — that the last moment of human history is inseparable from Christianity (“a Christianity” — writes Barth — “which is not absolutely and totally eschatology has absolutely and totally nothing to do with Christ”). The antichrist is for John the one who in the last hour “denies that Jesus is the Christ” (that is, the Messiah) and antichrists are therefore the “many” who, like him, “went out from us, but were not of us”, which suggests, not without ambiguity, that the antichrist comes out of the bosom of the ekklesia, but he doesn’t really belong to it. As such, he is repeatedly called “deceiver” (planos, literally “the one who misleads”, vulg. seductor).
However, the exegesis of fathers and theologians on the antichrist did not concentrate for centuries on the letters of John, but on the second Pauline epistle to the Thessalonians. Even though the term does not appear in it, the enigmatic character that the letter presents as “the man of anomie” (ho anthropos tes anomias) and the “son of perdition” (ho uios tes apoleias) has already been identified by Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Tertullian and then by Augustine with the antichrist. Indeed, Paul says of him, whom he also calls as “lawless” (anomos), that he “opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God”. The antichrist is a mundane power (a tradition identified him with a revived Nero) which tries to imitate and counterfeit the kingdom of Christ in the time of the end.
In the letter to the Thessalonians, however, the lawless man is placed in close relationship with another enigmatic figure, the katechon, that which holds back (also in third-person form: “the one who holds back”). That which holds back is “the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ and our reunion with him”: the context of the letter is, therefore, as eschatological as in the letter of John (a little earlier, the apostle evokes “the just judgment of God... at the revelation of the Lord Jesus with the angels of his power”). Already in the time of Augustine, this power which holds back the final advent of Christ was identified with the Roman Empire (which, in Augustine’s words, was never explicitly named by Paul “lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal”) or with the Roman church itself, as John’s letter seemed to suggest, mentioning the antichrists who “shall come out of us”. In any case, whether it is the Roman Empire or the church, the power which holds back is that of an institution founded on a stable law or consitution (anticipating our notion of “state”, Tertullian says: status romanus, which in his day meant “the steadiness of the Roman Empire”).
It is crucial to understand the relationship between the power which holds back and “the man of lawlessness”. It has sometimes been interpreted as a conflict bewtween two powers, in which the lawless one or the antichrist “takes out of the way” the power which holds back. The expressionek mesou genetai (“until he that now holds back is taken out of the way”) does not in any way imply that it is the man of anomie who does it: as the translation of the Vulgate (donec de medio fiat) suggests, it is the very power which holds back (be it the empire or the church) to take itself out of the way. The immediately following text is, in this sense, perfectly clear: “and then the lawless one will be revealed”. The relationship between the institutional power of the katechon and the man of lawlessness is the succession between two mundane powers, one of which takes itself out of the way and is replaced — or passes through — into the other. This is, in Paul’s words, “the mystery of anomie that is already at work” and which eventually finds its unveiling, almost as if, as the term “mystery” seems to suggest, the “lawsless one” exhibited finally in full light the truth of the preceding power.
If this is true, then the letter contains a doctrine on the fate of any insitutional power which must not be overlooked. According to this doctrine, in the end, firmly founded institutional power necessarily gives way to a condition of anomie, in which the constitutionally founded sovereign is replaced by a “lawless” sovereign, who arbitrarily exercises his government. Hence the letter contains a message that concerns us closely, because it is just such a “mystery of anomie” that we are living through. State power founded on laws and the so-called democratic constitutions has been transforming — through an unstoppable process which began long ago, but that only now comes to its ultimate crisis — into an anomic condition, in which the law is replaced by executive power decrees and measures, and the state of emergency becomes the normal form of government. It remains — it is good not to forget — that the letter states that once the “lawless one” shall reveal himself through his own power, “the Lord shall slay him by the breath of his mouth and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming”. This means that what remains for us to think about in the apparently dead-end condition we are going through is the form of a human community that escapes both the “power which holds back” with its apparent institutional stability and the emergency anomie into which it fatally converts itself.
(English translation by I, Robot)
Alexander Dmitrievich Aksinin, Power, 1966. Courtesy of WikiArt.
Saturday, October 22, 2022
Friday, October 21, 2022
King Kong
Needless to say, an aspiring filmmaker like Fabiano Caruana could not miss such an occasion! Photo © Austin Fuller/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
The Best Jennifer in the Galaxy
And finally, here she is, 于润荷 (Jennifer Yú), the best Jennifer in the galaxy! Photos © Lennart Ootes/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Second Time Around
于润荷 (Jennifer Yú) abandons herself to the uncontainable joy of victory, three years after her first title win in 2019. Photo © Lennart Ootes/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Thursday, October 20, 2022
Armageddon’s Arrow
Irina Borisivna Krush – 于润荷 (Jennifer Yú)
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Armageddon game; time control: 5 minutes for White, 4 minutes for Black, with a 2 second increment after the 60th move; Saint Louis, October 20, 2022
King’s Indian Attack A07
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. 0-0 e5 5. d3 Ne7 6. Nbd2 0-0 7. e4 d4 8. Ne1
Nbc6 9. f4
9. ... Bg4?? A dramatic lapsus manus by 于 (Yú), by which a clear piece is lost! Now it should be only a matter of a few minutes for Krush, but, as Emanuel Lasker used to say, “The hardest game to win is a won game”.
10. Qxg4 f5 11. Qe2 Qd7 12. Nef3 Rae8 13. fxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15. exf5 Nxf5 16. Ne4 b6 17. Bd2 c5 18. Rf2 Re7 19. Raf1 Rfe8 20. Bh3 Rf7
10. Qxg4 f5 11. Qe2 Qd7 12. Nef3 Rae8 13. fxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15. exf5 Nxf5 16. Ne4 b6 17. Bd2 c5 18. Rf2 Re7 19. Raf1 Rfe8 20. Bh3 Rf7
21. g4
Nd6 22. Nxd6 Bxh2+ 23. Kxh2?? White complicated things quite a bit, but after 23. Rxh2 Rxe2 24. Nxf7 she would still be winning. The move in the text gives Black unexpected chances.
23. ... Qxd6+ 24. Kh1 Rxe2 25. Rxe2 Qd5+? (⌓ 25. ... Qg3!)
26. Kg1 Rxf1+ 27. Bxf1 Qf3 28. g5! Qg4+ 29. Rg2 Qd1 30. Bf4 Qf3 31. Rf2 Qg4+ 32. Bg2 Qd1+ 33. Kh2 Qe1 34. Bd5+ Kg7 35. Bg3 Qe8 36. Kg2 h5 37. Rf7+ Kh8 38. Kf1 Qe3 39. Rf8+ Kg7 40. Rf7+ Kh8
23. ... Qxd6+ 24. Kh1 Rxe2 25. Rxe2 Qd5+? (⌓ 25. ... Qg3!)
26. Kg1 Rxf1+ 27. Bxf1 Qf3 28. g5! Qg4+ 29. Rg2 Qd1 30. Bf4 Qf3 31. Rf2 Qg4+ 32. Bg2 Qd1+ 33. Kh2 Qe1 34. Bd5+ Kg7 35. Bg3 Qe8 36. Kg2 h5 37. Rf7+ Kh8 38. Kf1 Qe3 39. Rf8+ Kg7 40. Rf7+ Kh8
41. Bf2?? 41. Bf4 Qe8 42. Rxa7 would have won easily for White, but alas for Krush, time is tyrant!
41. ... Qc1+ 42. Be1 Qxg5 43. Be4 Qg4 44. Bf2 Qd1+ 45. Kg2 Qg4+ 46. Kh2. At first Krush made an illegal move, as it left her King in check. Then the inflexible referee made her move her King and gave her a symbolic time penalty — as she had only a few seconds anyway — which consisted in 于 (Yú) getting two minutes added to her clock.
46. ... Kg8 47. Rf3 h4 0 : 1. White overstepped the time limit.
41. ... Qc1+ 42. Be1 Qxg5 43. Be4 Qg4 44. Bf2 Qd1+ 45. Kg2 Qg4+ 46. Kh2. At first Krush made an illegal move, as it left her King in check. Then the inflexible referee made her move her King and gave her a symbolic time penalty — as she had only a few seconds anyway — which consisted in 于 (Yú) getting two minutes added to her clock.
46. ... Kg8 47. Rf3 h4 0 : 1. White overstepped the time limit.
于 (Yú) played Krush four times in the 61st U.S. Women’s Championship to set the record of blundering a Bishop in two of their games: “Turns out I really dislike light squared Bishops”, she finally joked. Photo © Lennart Ootes/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Bounceback
Irina Borisivna Krush – 于润荷 (Jennifer Yú)
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; tie-break game 2; time control: 10 minutes plus 2 seconds per move; Saint Louis, October 20, 2022
Slav Defence D10
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. Bf4 Nf6 5. e3 Nc6 6. Bb5 Qa5+ 7. Nc3 Bd7 8.
Ne2 e6 9. 0-0 a6 10. Bd3 Be7 11. a3 b5 12. Nb1 Qb6 13. Nd2 Na5 14. b4 Nc4 15.
Nb3 0-0 16. Nc5 Bxc5 17. dxc5 Qb7 18. Bc2 h6 19. Qd3 e5 20. Bg3 g6 21. Qc3 Rfe8
22. f3 Bc6 23. Bb3 Qe7 24. Rfe1 Rad8 25. Bh4 Qe6 26. Bf2 Nd7 27. a4 Nb8 28. axb5
Bxb5 29. Rec1 Qc6 30. e4 d4 31. Nxd4 exd4 32. Bxd4 Ne5
33. Bd5? White allows Black to take the upper hand. If 33. Bxe5 then 33. ... Rd3 34. Qb2 Rxb3 35. Qxb3 Rxe5 with an uneven balance of force and material.
33. ... Rxd5! 34. exd5 Qxd5 35. Re1
33. ... Rxd5! 34. exd5 Qxd5 35. Re1
35. ... Nc4?? 于 (Yú) blunders away the game as she sounds the clarion call for Armageddon! With 35. ... Nbc6! Black would have consolidated her advantage.
36. Rxe8+ Bxe8 37. Bh8+− f6 38. Qxf6 Qf7 39. Qc3 Bb5 40. Rd1 Nc6 41. Bf6 Qe6 42. Re1 Qd7
36. Rxe8+ Bxe8 37. Bh8+− f6 38. Qxf6 Qf7 39. Qc3 Bb5 40. Rd1 Nc6 41. Bf6 Qe6 42. Re1 Qd7
43. h4 Nd2 44. Be5 Nxe5 45. Qxe5 Nc4 46. Qf6 Qf7 47.
Qd8+ Kg7 48. Re7 1 : 0.
The second game was all another story: 于 (Yú) took too many things for granted and was mercilessly punished by Krush. Photo © Lennart Ootes/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Just Ten Minutes
于润荷 (Jennifer Yú) – Irina Borisivna Krush
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; tie-break game 1; time control: 10 minutes plus 2 seconds per move; Saint Louis, October 20, 2022
Benoni Defence A56
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. g3 g6 6. Bg2 Bg7 7. e4 0-0 8. Nge2 Nbd7
9. 0-0 Ne8 10. h3 f5 11. f4 Nc7 12. Be3 exf4 13. Bxf4 Ne5 14. b3 Bd7 15. Qd2 b5
16. exf5 gxf5 17. cxb5 Nxb5 18. Rae1 Qf6 19. Nd1 a5 20. a4 Nd4 21. Nxd4 cxd4 22.
Nf2 Rfb8 23. Nd3 Re8 24. Rc1 Rab8 25. Rc7 Bc8 26. Nc1 Rb4 27. Re1 Qd8 28. Rc2
Ba6 29. Kh2
29. ... Qb6? Better is 29. ... d3! 30. Rc6! Nxc6 31. Rxe8+ Qxe8 32. dxc6 when White’s dangerous passed Pawn provides compensation for the Exchange.
30. Qf2? (30. Rc6!+−)
30. ... d3 31. Be3 Qb7 32. Rd2 Qd7 33. Bf4 Rbb8 34. Bxe5 Bxe5 35. Nxd3 Bxd3 36. Rxd3 Kh8 37. Rf3 Rg8 (⌓ 37. ... Qg7)
30. Qf2? (30. Rc6!+−)
30. ... d3 31. Be3 Qb7 32. Rd2 Qd7 33. Bf4 Rbb8 34. Bxe5 Bxe5 35. Nxd3 Bxd3 36. Rxd3 Kh8 37. Rf3 Rg8 (⌓ 37. ... Qg7)
38. Rxe5! dxe5 39. Rxf5 Rxb3? (39. ... Rg7)
40. Rf7 Qd6 41. Be4 Rg7 42. Rf8+ Rg8 43. Rf7 Rg7 44. Rf8+ Rg8
40. Rf7 Qd6 41. Be4 Rg7 42. Rf8+ Rg8 43. Rf7 Rg7 44. Rf8+ Rg8
45. Qf7! Qxf8 46. Qxh7# 1 : 0.
于 (Yú) showed all her strength of character as well as her fickle talent in the first game of the tie-breaker. Photo © Lennart Ootes/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Today Is Another Day
Thalia Cervantes Landeiro – 于润荷 (Jennifer Yú)
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 19, 2022
Queen’s Indian Defence E17
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 19, 2022
Queen’s Indian Defence E17
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Re1 a5 8. Bg5 Ne4 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nfd2 f5. The alternative is 10. ... Nxd2 11. Bxb7 Ra7
12. Qxd2 Rxb7 13. Nc3 Qb4 14. b3 d5 15. cxd5 exd5 16. Qc2 c6
17. e4 dxe4 18. Rxe4 Qd6 19. Rae1 Nd7 20. Re7 Rbb8 21. Qf5 Nf6
22. Qe5 Rbd8 ½ : ½ Miton – Rozentalis, 12th MetLife Amplico European Rapid Championship, Warsaw 2012 (time control: 15 minutes plus 10 seconds per move). But today 于 (Yú) cannot afford equality, as it would automatically mean renouncing the possibility, even theoretical, of winning the title.
11. Nxe4 fxe4 12. Nc3 d5 13. cxd5! Simpler and better than 13. Qb3 a4! 14. Nxa4 Qf6 15. e3 Qxf2+ 16. Kh1 dxc4?? (16. ... Nd7!⩱) 17. Qxc4 Bd5 18. Qxc7 Rf7? 19. Qd8+ Rf8 20. Qd6 Rxa4 21. Rf1 Nc6 22. Rxf2 Rxf2 23. Kg1 Rf8 24. Bxe4 Rd8 25. Qf4 Nxd4 26. exd4 Rxd4 27. Bxh7+ 1 : 0 Loiseau – R. E. Nielsen, 25th Open, Zadar 2018.
13. ... exd5 14. Qb3. Better first 14. f3 and only after 14. ... Nd7 (or 14. ... e3) then 15. Qb3⩲ with an edge for White.
14. ... Qb4! And not 14. ... Qf6? by reason of 15. Nxd5 Qxf2+ 16. Kh1 Qf7 17. Nxc7 Qxb3 18. axb3 Ra7 19. Nb5 with an overwhelming advantage for White.
15. Red1. 15. Qxb4? axb4 16. Nb5 c6 17. Nc7 (17. Nd6 Ba6∓) 17. ... Ra5 followed sooner or later by ... c6-c5 with manifest advantage to Black.
15. ... Na6. Black could play at once 15. ... Qxb3 16. axb3 Na6 analogously to the game. The difference is that now White could have avoided and perhaps should have avoided the exchange of Queens.
16. Rac1 Qxb3. But here they are, after all. The simplified position which now results is slightly in favour of Black, of course, even though still possibly drawable.
17. axb3 Rad8 18. Nb5?! The beginning of a Knight’s tour which does not seem to help the defence.
18. ... c6 19. Nc3 Nb4 20. Na4 Ba6 21. Bf1. 21. Nxb6 Bxe2 22. Rd2 Bb5 was not pleasant either.
21. ... Rb8 22. Kg2
11. Nxe4 fxe4 12. Nc3 d5 13. cxd5! Simpler and better than 13. Qb3 a4! 14. Nxa4 Qf6 15. e3 Qxf2+ 16. Kh1 dxc4?? (16. ... Nd7!⩱) 17. Qxc4 Bd5 18. Qxc7 Rf7? 19. Qd8+ Rf8 20. Qd6 Rxa4 21. Rf1 Nc6 22. Rxf2 Rxf2 23. Kg1 Rf8 24. Bxe4 Rd8 25. Qf4 Nxd4 26. exd4 Rxd4 27. Bxh7+ 1 : 0 Loiseau – R. E. Nielsen, 25th Open, Zadar 2018.
13. ... exd5 14. Qb3. Better first 14. f3 and only after 14. ... Nd7 (or 14. ... e3) then 15. Qb3⩲ with an edge for White.
14. ... Qb4! And not 14. ... Qf6? by reason of 15. Nxd5 Qxf2+ 16. Kh1 Qf7 17. Nxc7 Qxb3 18. axb3 Ra7 19. Nb5 with an overwhelming advantage for White.
15. Red1. 15. Qxb4? axb4 16. Nb5 c6 17. Nc7 (17. Nd6 Ba6∓) 17. ... Ra5 followed sooner or later by ... c6-c5 with manifest advantage to Black.
15. ... Na6. Black could play at once 15. ... Qxb3 16. axb3 Na6 analogously to the game. The difference is that now White could have avoided and perhaps should have avoided the exchange of Queens.
16. Rac1 Qxb3. But here they are, after all. The simplified position which now results is slightly in favour of Black, of course, even though still possibly drawable.
17. axb3 Rad8 18. Nb5?! The beginning of a Knight’s tour which does not seem to help the defence.
18. ... c6 19. Nc3 Nb4 20. Na4 Ba6 21. Bf1. 21. Nxb6 Bxe2 22. Rd2 Bb5 was not pleasant either.
21. ... Rb8 22. Kg2
22. ... g5! Black has considerably improved her position, greatly increasing her chances of winning the game.
23. e3 (23. f3 e3∓)
23. ... Bd3!? Maybe the only shadow in an otherwise superbly conducted endgame. The best seems to be 23. ... Bxf1+ 24. Kxf1 Rf3 similarly to the game.
24. Rd2? 24. Bxd3 was decidedly better, to which Black can reply with 24. ... exd3!⩱ (as 24. ... Nxd3 25. Rxc6 Rxf2+ 26. Kg1 b5 27. Nc3 does not seem to offer much).
24. ... Rf6 25. Kg1 Kf7 26. Bxd3 Nxd3 27. Rf1 Rf3
23. e3 (23. f3 e3∓)
23. ... Bd3!? Maybe the only shadow in an otherwise superbly conducted endgame. The best seems to be 23. ... Bxf1+ 24. Kxf1 Rf3 similarly to the game.
24. Rd2? 24. Bxd3 was decidedly better, to which Black can reply with 24. ... exd3!⩱ (as 24. ... Nxd3 25. Rxc6 Rxf2+ 26. Kg1 b5 27. Nc3 does not seem to offer much).
24. ... Rf6 25. Kg1 Kf7 26. Bxd3 Nxd3 27. Rf1 Rf3
28. Rc2 Nb4 29. Rd2 Ke7 30. Rc1 Kd6 31. Rf1 Kc7 32. Nc3 Rbf8 33. Ne2 h5! 34. Kg2 c5! White is completely outplayed and can’t do anything but wait.
35. h4 gxh4 36. gxh4 Rg8+ 37. Ng3 Rg4 38. Rh1 Kd6 39. dxc5+ bxc5 40. Ra1 Nc6 41. Rc1
35. h4 gxh4 36. gxh4 Rg8+ 37. Ng3 Rg4 38. Rh1 Kd6 39. dxc5+ bxc5 40. Ra1 Nc6 41. Rc1
41. ... d4!? (41. ... Ne7−+)
42. exd4? 42. Rc3! was White’s best defence, with the idea of 43. ... d3? 44. Rcxd3+! saving the day. Therefore Black would have probably played 42. ... Rf8 43. Kh3 Rxg3+! 44. Kxg3 d3! 45. f4! Ne7!∓/−+ with good winning chances.
42. ... cxd4 43. Rc4 d3 44. Ra4 (44. Rxe4 Rfxg3+−+)
44. ... Ne5 45. Rxa5 Ng6 46. Ra6+ Kc7 47. Ra4 Nxh4+ 48. Kh3 Nf5 49. Rc4+ Kd6 50. Kh2 Nxg3 51. fxg3 Kd5 52. Ra4 Rgxg3 53. Ra5+ Kd4 54. Rxh5 Ke3 55. Rd1 Ke2 56. Ra1 d2 57. Rh4 e3 0 : 1.
42. exd4? 42. Rc3! was White’s best defence, with the idea of 43. ... d3? 44. Rcxd3+! saving the day. Therefore Black would have probably played 42. ... Rf8 43. Kh3 Rxg3+! 44. Kxg3 d3! 45. f4! Ne7!∓/−+ with good winning chances.
42. ... cxd4 43. Rc4 d3 44. Ra4 (44. Rxe4 Rfxg3+−+)
44. ... Ne5 45. Rxa5 Ng6 46. Ra6+ Kc7 47. Ra4 Nxh4+ 48. Kh3 Nf5 49. Rc4+ Kd6 50. Kh2 Nxg3 51. fxg3 Kd5 52. Ra4 Rgxg3 53. Ra5+ Kd4 54. Rxh5 Ke3 55. Rd1 Ke2 56. Ra1 d2 57. Rh4 e3 0 : 1.
Thanks to her last round of mastery technique, 于 (Yú) tied for the title with eight-time U.S. Women’s Champion Irina Borisivna Krush, so as to make her audiences keep up for another day before the last word — or tiebreaker, as it is technically called — will be spoken. Photo © Crystal Fuller/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Win-Win-Lose
于润荷 (Jennifer Yú) – Irina Borisivna Krush
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 18, 2022
King’s Indian Defence E76
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 18, 2022
King’s Indian Defence E76
The jokes of fate can be cruel. Due to a curious coincidence, 于 (Yú) has both her closest rivals, Krush and Thalia Cervantes Landeiro, to meet in the last two rounds! This means, as arbiter Chris Bird says, that “even if 于润荷 (Jennifer Yú) beats Irina Krush in rd 12 [today], it still might not guarantee her the 2022 U.S. Women’s Championship as she has to play Thalia Cervantes, who is on a 4 game winning streak, in the last round!”.
Whether one believes in divination or not, it’s just the case to say that Cervantes Landeiro won today as well, thus raising to 5 the number of her winning streak.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 g6 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. e4 d6 6. f4. The Four Pawns Attack, which does not sound exactly like a declaration of peace.
6. ... 0-0 7. Nf3 e6 8. dxe6!? fxe6 9. Be2. More reserved than 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. 0-0 Nd4 11. Ng5!? e5! 12. f5!? h6! 13. Nh3 gxf5 14. exf5 b5!?∞ Christiansen – Kasparov, Interzonal Tournament, Moscow 1982 — “Despite its age, this game is very important for an understanding of the line”, Grandmaster Viktor Petrovich Moskalenko writes in his book “An Attacking Repertoire for White with 1. d4: Ambitious Ideas and Powerful Weapons”, New In Chess, Alkmaar, 2019, p. 22.
9. ... Nc6 10. 0-0 b6 11. Ne1?! A novelty of doubtful value, which could be the fruit of improvisation. Theoretical subjects of study are as follows:
a) 11. Ng5 Nd4 12. Bd3 Qe7 13. Qe1 Bd7 14. Bd2 Rad8 15. Kh1 Nh5 16. Qd1 Bf6⇄ Fridman – Conquest, 4th EU Individual Open Chess Championship, Liverpool 2008;
b) 11. Kh1 Bb7 12. Be3 Qe7 13. Qd2 Rad8 14. Rae1 Kh8 15. f5 exf5 16. exf5 gxf5 17. Bg5 Qd7 18. Bd3 (Piket – Nunn, 54th Hoogovens International Chess Tournament, Wijk aan Zee 1992) 18. ... Nb4 19. Bb1 Rde8⇄ (Bologan’s analysis).
11. ... Bb7 12. Be3 Nd4 13. Bd3 Qe7 14. Nc2 Nd7 15. Rb1 Rf7 16. Qd2 Raf8 17. Rbe1 e5
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 g6 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. e4 d6 6. f4. The Four Pawns Attack, which does not sound exactly like a declaration of peace.
6. ... 0-0 7. Nf3 e6 8. dxe6!? fxe6 9. Be2. More reserved than 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. 0-0 Nd4 11. Ng5!? e5! 12. f5!? h6! 13. Nh3 gxf5 14. exf5 b5!?∞ Christiansen – Kasparov, Interzonal Tournament, Moscow 1982 — “Despite its age, this game is very important for an understanding of the line”, Grandmaster Viktor Petrovich Moskalenko writes in his book “An Attacking Repertoire for White with 1. d4: Ambitious Ideas and Powerful Weapons”, New In Chess, Alkmaar, 2019, p. 22.
9. ... Nc6 10. 0-0 b6 11. Ne1?! A novelty of doubtful value, which could be the fruit of improvisation. Theoretical subjects of study are as follows:
a) 11. Ng5 Nd4 12. Bd3 Qe7 13. Qe1 Bd7 14. Bd2 Rad8 15. Kh1 Nh5 16. Qd1 Bf6⇄ Fridman – Conquest, 4th EU Individual Open Chess Championship, Liverpool 2008;
b) 11. Kh1 Bb7 12. Be3 Qe7 13. Qd2 Rad8 14. Rae1 Kh8 15. f5 exf5 16. exf5 gxf5 17. Bg5 Qd7 18. Bd3 (Piket – Nunn, 54th Hoogovens International Chess Tournament, Wijk aan Zee 1992) 18. ... Nb4 19. Bb1 Rde8⇄ (Bologan’s analysis).
11. ... Bb7 12. Be3 Nd4 13. Bd3 Qe7 14. Nc2 Nd7 15. Rb1 Rf7 16. Qd2 Raf8 17. Rbe1 e5
18. Nd5? An error of bad judgment, dropping a Pawn for no good reason. 18. f5! was almost an imperative.
18. ... Bxd5 19. exd5 Nxc2 20. Bxc2 exf4 21. Rxf4 (21. Bxf4 Qf6∓)
21. ... Rxf4?! Black should have taken on b2 at once. The interpolation of the moves that follow only helps White to give a sense to her opening flop.
22. Bxf4 Bd4+ 23. Kh1 Qf6. If 23. ... Rxf4? then 24. g3! and Black has nothing better than 24. ... Rf7 25. Rxe7 Rxe7 with an unbalanced equilibrium.
24. g3 Ne5 25. Qe2 Bxb2
18. ... Bxd5 19. exd5 Nxc2 20. Bxc2 exf4 21. Rxf4 (21. Bxf4 Qf6∓)
21. ... Rxf4?! Black should have taken on b2 at once. The interpolation of the moves that follow only helps White to give a sense to her opening flop.
22. Bxf4 Bd4+ 23. Kh1 Qf6. If 23. ... Rxf4? then 24. g3! and Black has nothing better than 24. ... Rf7 25. Rxe7 Rxe7 with an unbalanced equilibrium.
24. g3 Ne5 25. Qe2 Bxb2
Black has won a Pawn after all, but under less favourable circumstances, as now White can claim some compensation.
26. h4! Bd4 27. Kg2 Qe7 28. Rf1 Qd7 29. Bxe5 Re8? A wrong finesse which could cost Krush the game. Simply 29. ... Bxe5 would have kept the situation under control.
26. h4! Bd4 27. Kg2 Qe7 28. Rf1 Qd7 29. Bxe5 Re8? A wrong finesse which could cost Krush the game. Simply 29. ... Bxe5 would have kept the situation under control.
30. Qf3! Bxe5 31. Ba4?? A true pseudo-deflecting hallucination, which instead costs 于 (Yú) the point. The presence of Bishops of opposite colour just suggests that 31. h5!→ would have given White a virtually irresistible attack.
31. ... Qxa4 32. Qf7+ Kh8. Is it really possible that 于 (Yú) didn’t notice that the Black Rook is still defended? Yes. Apparently. Or maybe no.
33. h5 gxh5 34. Rf5 Bd4 35. Rg5 Qc2+ 36. Kh3 Qe4 37. Rxh5 Qh1+ 38. Kg4 Qe4+ 0 : 1.
31. ... Qxa4 32. Qf7+ Kh8. Is it really possible that 于 (Yú) didn’t notice that the Black Rook is still defended? Yes. Apparently. Or maybe no.
33. h5 gxh5 34. Rf5 Bd4 35. Rg5 Qc2+ 36. Kh3 Qe4 37. Rxh5 Qh1+ 38. Kg4 Qe4+ 0 : 1.
于 (Yú)’s nerves betrayed her at last. Photo © Crystal Fuller/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Through the Eye of a Needle
Gulrukhbegim Tokhirjonova – 于润荷 (Jennifer Yú)
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 17, 2022
Russian Defence C43
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 17, 2022
Russian Defence C43
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. 0-0 Bd6 8.
Nc3 Nxc3 9. bxc3 0-0 10. Qh5 f5 11. c4 Qf6 (11. ... dxc4 12. Bxc4+ Kh8 13. Rb1 b6 14. Re1 Qf6 15. Bb2 Rae8= Kanarek – Kuzubov, 18th European Individual Chess Championship, Minsk 2017)
12. c3 dxc4 13. Bxc4+ Be6 14. Bd3 h6!? It’s curious to note that a game between computers from the early 2000s continued 14. ... Rae8 15. Bg5 Qf7 with balanced play, Shredder – Junior, Cadaqués Computer Tournament, Cadaqués 2001.
15. Re1 Rae8 16. Bd2 Re7 17. h4 Bd5 18. Be3 c6 19. c4 Be4
12. c3 dxc4 13. Bxc4+ Be6 14. Bd3 h6!? It’s curious to note that a game between computers from the early 2000s continued 14. ... Rae8 15. Bg5 Qf7 with balanced play, Shredder – Junior, Cadaqués Computer Tournament, Cadaqués 2001.
15. Re1 Rae8 16. Bd2 Re7 17. h4 Bd5 18. Be3 c6 19. c4 Be4
20. Bg5 Qf7. Obviously not 20. ... hxg5?? on account of 21. hxg5 threatening both the Queen and g5-g6.
21. Qxf7+ Rexf7 22. Bxe4 hxg5 23. Bc2 Bb4 24. Re6 gxh4 25. Rb1 a5 26. d5 cxd5 27. cxd5 Rd8 28. Rd1 Bd6 29. Rb1 Kf8 30. Kf1 Bb4 31. Rd1 Rfd7 32. Bb3 Re7 33. Rg6? (⌓ 33. g3)
33. ... a4? And here better was 33. ... Rd6! forcing the exchange of Rooks in much more favourable circumstances.
34. d6 Rxd6 35. Rgxd6 Bxd6 36. Rxd6 axb3 37. axb3 Kf7 38. Rb6 g6 39. Kg1 Kg7 40. Kh2 Kh6 41. Kh3 Kh5
21. Qxf7+ Rexf7 22. Bxe4 hxg5 23. Bc2 Bb4 24. Re6 gxh4 25. Rb1 a5 26. d5 cxd5 27. cxd5 Rd8 28. Rd1 Bd6 29. Rb1 Kf8 30. Kf1 Bb4 31. Rd1 Rfd7 32. Bb3 Re7 33. Rg6? (⌓ 33. g3)
33. ... a4? And here better was 33. ... Rd6! forcing the exchange of Rooks in much more favourable circumstances.
34. d6 Rxd6 35. Rgxd6 Bxd6 36. Rxd6 axb3 37. axb3 Kf7 38. Rb6 g6 39. Kg1 Kg7 40. Kh2 Kh6 41. Kh3 Kh5
42. g3 hxg3 43. Kxg3?? A grave blunder which throws which throws away the game. 43. fxg3 was the move, with a draw soon.
43. ... g5 44. Rb5 f4+ 45. Kf3 Rc7 46. Rb6 (46. Kg2 Kh4! 47. Rb4 Rc3! 48. Rxb7 f3+−+)
46. ... Rc3+ 47. Kg2
43. ... g5 44. Rb5 f4+ 45. Kf3 Rc7 46. Rb6 (46. Kg2 Kh4! 47. Rb4 Rc3! 48. Rxb7 f3+−+)
46. ... Rc3+ 47. Kg2
47. ... Kh4! 48. Rh6+ Kg4 49. Rb6 Rc7 50. Rb4 Kh4 51. Kh2 Rd7 52. Rb6 Rd2 53. Kg2 g4! 54. Rxb7 g3 55. Rh7+ Kg5 56. Rg7+ Kf6 57. Rg8 Rxf2+ 58. Kg1 Rb2 59. b4 Rxb4 60. Kg2 Rb2+ 61. Kf3 Rf2+ 62. Kg4 g2 63. Kh3 f3 64. Rf8+ Kg7 65. Rf5. Now 于 (Yú) must only be careful to avoid the last trap: 65. ... g1=Q?? 66. Rg5+!! with a draw, as after 66. ... Qxg5 White is stalemated.
65. ... Rf1! 0 : 1.
65. ... Rf1! 0 : 1.
And finally 于 (Yú), by virtue of her strength of will and purpose, was able to get a win out of a drawish Rook ending. Photo © Lennart Ootes/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Monday, October 17, 2022
Once Upon a Birthday
From a video interview published on July 24, 2020: Alina Kirsanovna Ilyumzhinova, the daughter of 6th FIDE President Kirsan Nikolayevich Ilyumzhinov, celebrates her 22nd birthday by initiating a fundraiser for MOVEMENT UP, a charity aimed at helping children with disabilities. |
Sunday, October 16, 2022
Broadcast delay
于润荷 (Jennifer Yú) – 严锐阳 (Yán Ruìyáng)
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 6, 2022
Tarrasch Defence D32
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 6, 2022
Tarrasch Defence D32
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 c5 5. cxd5 exd5 6. d4 Nc6 7. Be2 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bc5
9. Bf3 Ne5 10. 0-0 0-0 11. h3 Re8. 11. ... Bb6 12. b3 Re8 is also fine for Black, Bautista Sánchez – Striković, 51st Spanish Team Chess Championship — Primera División, Sabadell 2007.
12. Nb3 Nxf3+ 13. Qxf3 Bb6 14. Rd1 Be6 15. Nd4 Rc8 16. Nde2 Ne4 17. Nf4 Nxc3 18. bxc3 Qf6 19. Bb2 Rc4. The object of Black is to sacrifice her d-Pawn for dynamic compensation.
20. Qh5 Rc5
12. Nb3 Nxf3+ 13. Qxf3 Bb6 14. Rd1 Be6 15. Nd4 Rc8 16. Nde2 Ne4 17. Nf4 Nxc3 18. bxc3 Qf6 19. Bb2 Rc4. The object of Black is to sacrifice her d-Pawn for dynamic compensation.
20. Qh5 Rc5
21. Nxd5. “于 (Yú) bravely captures the extra Pawn despite landing her Knight in a pin”, Vanessa West wrote in her recap of day 2.
21. ... Bxd5 22. Rxd5 g6 23. Qd1 Rxd5 24. Qxd5 Rd8 25. Qb5 Rd2 26. Rf1 Qc6 27. Qb3
21. ... Bxd5 22. Rxd5 g6 23. Qd1 Rxd5 24. Qxd5 Rd8 25. Qb5 Rd2 26. Rf1 Qc6 27. Qb3
27. ... Qf6?! Obviously not 27. ... Bxe3?? because of 28. Bc1 winning at once, but stronger was 27. ... Re2! (actually threatening ... Bb6xe3) 28. c4 (28. Bc1 Qe4) 28. ... Bxe3! 29. Qc3 f6! with a perfectly playable game for Black.
28. Bc1 Rd3? Again Black should have played 28. ... Re2 29. Qc4 Rc2 30. Qc8+ Qd8 31. Qxb7 Rxa2 32. c4 when White has an extra Pawn, but a very hard technical challenge in order to make something of it.
29. Qb5 Rd8 30. c4 Rc8 31. Bb2 Qe6 32. Rc1 Rd8 33. c5. Finally White wins a second Pawn and the game.
33. ... Rd5 34. Qb4 Bc7 35. Qxb7 Qd7 36. Qa8+ Qd8 37. Qxd8+ Rxd8 38. Bd4 Rb8 39. g3 h5 40. Kg2 Rb5 41. g4 hxg4 42. hxg4 Kf8 43. Bf6 Ke8 44. c6 Rb6 45. g5 Ra6 46. Rc4 1 : 0.
28. Bc1 Rd3? Again Black should have played 28. ... Re2 29. Qc4 Rc2 30. Qc8+ Qd8 31. Qxb7 Rxa2 32. c4 when White has an extra Pawn, but a very hard technical challenge in order to make something of it.
29. Qb5 Rd8 30. c4 Rc8 31. Bb2 Qe6 32. Rc1 Rd8 33. c5. Finally White wins a second Pawn and the game.
33. ... Rd5 34. Qb4 Bc7 35. Qxb7 Qd7 36. Qa8+ Qd8 37. Qxd8+ Rxd8 38. Bd4 Rb8 39. g3 h5 40. Kg2 Rb5 41. g4 hxg4 42. hxg4 Kf8 43. Bf6 Ke8 44. c6 Rb6 45. g5 Ra6 46. Rc4 1 : 0.
Not by chance Tartakower defined a chess game as “a fairy tale of 1,001 mistakes”. Photo © Lennart Ootes/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
A Hard Day’s Night
于润荷 (Jennifer Yú) – Nazí Nodarovna Paikidze
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 15, 2022
English Opening A17
61st U.S. Women’s Chess Championship; Saint Louis, October 15, 2022
English Opening A17
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 c5 5. a3 Ba5 6. e4?! Strategically speaking, it is a punch in the eye that leaves a hole in the centre. Much more sensible is 6. e3 0-0 7. Be2 d5 8. 0-0 Nc6 9. Na4 Qe7 10. Qc2 Nd7 11. d4⩲ Karpov – Timman, 6th “Niemeyer” Junior International Tournament, Groningen 1968.
6. ... Nc6
6. ... Nc6
7. e5? Maybe showing her hidden card, or maybe just making a virtue of necessity. Of course, on the other hand, it isn’t easy for 于 (Yú) to resign herself to an ugly move like 7. Bd3 and bring her lust for adventure down to a mere survival basis.
7. ... Ng4 8. Ne4 0-0! First spirit, then matter. If, instead, 8. ... Ngxe5? then 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. Qg3! Ng6 11. Nd6+ Kf8 12. b4!↑ with the initiative to White.
9. Nxc5 Bb6 10. Nd3 d6 11. c5!? White has nothing better than returning the Pawn, for if 11. exd6? there would follow 11. ... e5! with overwhelming threats.
11. ... dxc5 12. Qc4 Nh6 13. Nf4?! 13. Nxc5 might have been a little better, but likewise after 13. ... Na5 14. Qc3 Bxc5 15. b4 Bb6 16. bxa5 Bxa5 White’s development lags behind dangerously.
13. ... Bd7 14. Bd3 Nd4! Threatening ... Bd7-b5.
15. Nxd4 cxd4 16. Be4 Qg5 17. Nd3
7. ... Ng4 8. Ne4 0-0! First spirit, then matter. If, instead, 8. ... Ngxe5? then 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. Qg3! Ng6 11. Nd6+ Kf8 12. b4!↑ with the initiative to White.
9. Nxc5 Bb6 10. Nd3 d6 11. c5!? White has nothing better than returning the Pawn, for if 11. exd6? there would follow 11. ... e5! with overwhelming threats.
11. ... dxc5 12. Qc4 Nh6 13. Nf4?! 13. Nxc5 might have been a little better, but likewise after 13. ... Na5 14. Qc3 Bxc5 15. b4 Bb6 16. bxa5 Bxa5 White’s development lags behind dangerously.
13. ... Bd7 14. Bd3 Nd4! Threatening ... Bd7-b5.
15. Nxd4 cxd4 16. Be4 Qg5 17. Nd3
17. ... Ng4! 18. h4 (18. 0-0? Nxh2!)
18. ... Qd8. Probably there’s nothing wrong with it, but much stronger seems 18. ... Qh5! 19. Bxb7 Rab8 20. Ba6 f6! with crushing threats.
19. f3 f5? Too hasty. Black ought first to play 19. ... Rc8! and if 20. Qa2 then 20. ... f5! 21. Bxb7 Bb5! 22. Bxc8 Bxd3 23. Qxe6+ Kh8 24. Qd7 Ne5 25. Qxd8 Rxd8 with an overwhelming dynamic preponderance.
20. Bxb7 Rb8? Her best seems to be 20. ... Qb8! 21. Bxa8 Nxe5 (but 21. ... Rc8! might be more promising) 22. Nxe5 Qxe5+ 23. Qe2 Qg3+ 24. Qf2 (24. Kf1 d3! 25. Qe1 Qc7↑) 24. ... Qe5+ with a draw by perpetual check.
21. Ba6 Nh6 22. f4? If nothing else, Black is now prevented from playing ... f5-f4, but simpler seems 22. b4 Qe8 23. Bb2± followed by the capture of the d4-Pawn.
22. ... Qe7 23. b4 Qf7? Here Black apparently misses the possibility of a brilliant Exchange sacrifice: 23. ... Rfc8! 24. Bxc8 Rxc8 25. Qa6 Ng4! followed by ... Qe7-e8 with powerful compensation.
24. Bb2 Qg6 25. 0-0! Thus White finally completes her development!
18. ... Qd8. Probably there’s nothing wrong with it, but much stronger seems 18. ... Qh5! 19. Bxb7 Rab8 20. Ba6 f6! with crushing threats.
19. f3 f5? Too hasty. Black ought first to play 19. ... Rc8! and if 20. Qa2 then 20. ... f5! 21. Bxb7 Bb5! 22. Bxc8 Bxd3 23. Qxe6+ Kh8 24. Qd7 Ne5 25. Qxd8 Rxd8 with an overwhelming dynamic preponderance.
20. Bxb7 Rb8? Her best seems to be 20. ... Qb8! 21. Bxa8 Nxe5 (but 21. ... Rc8! might be more promising) 22. Nxe5 Qxe5+ 23. Qe2 Qg3+ 24. Qf2 (24. Kf1 d3! 25. Qe1 Qc7↑) 24. ... Qe5+ with a draw by perpetual check.
21. Ba6 Nh6 22. f4? If nothing else, Black is now prevented from playing ... f5-f4, but simpler seems 22. b4 Qe8 23. Bb2± followed by the capture of the d4-Pawn.
22. ... Qe7 23. b4 Qf7? Here Black apparently misses the possibility of a brilliant Exchange sacrifice: 23. ... Rfc8! 24. Bxc8 Rxc8 25. Qa6 Ng4! followed by ... Qe7-e8 with powerful compensation.
24. Bb2 Qg6 25. 0-0! Thus White finally completes her development!
25. ... Qg3? White is suddenly faced with a deadly threat (... Nh6-g4), but at a too high price for Paikidze. Black was still in time for 25. ... Rfc8! 26. Bxc8 Rxc8 27. Qa6 Qe8! 28. a4 Ng4 29. Rfc1 Rc3! with excellent compensation.
26. Rf3 Qxh4 27. Bxd4!? 于 (Yú) is short of time as usual and cannot afford the luxury of divagating, but, indeed, 27. a4! (Δ a4-a5) could have been her best way to play for a win.
27. ... Bxd4+ 28. Qxd4 Bc6 29. Rh3 Qg4 30. Qf2 Qg6 31. Rc1 Bd5 32. Rc7 Ng4 33. Qg3 Qe8 34. Nf2 Qd8 35. Qc3 Rf7 36. Rxf7 Kxf7 37. d4? In the furious time scramble, they both play well and badly. Here 于 (Yú) probably missed her chance to consolidate her advantage with 37. Qd4± and, as almost always happens in such cases, the tables suddenly turn:
37. ... Rb6 38. Be2 Rc6 39. Qd2 Qc8 40. Bxg4 fxg4. Time control was finally reached, with Black on the attack
41. Rg3 h5 42. Nd3 Rc2 43. Qe3 Qc3
26. Rf3 Qxh4 27. Bxd4!? 于 (Yú) is short of time as usual and cannot afford the luxury of divagating, but, indeed, 27. a4! (Δ a4-a5) could have been her best way to play for a win.
27. ... Bxd4+ 28. Qxd4 Bc6 29. Rh3 Qg4 30. Qf2 Qg6 31. Rc1 Bd5 32. Rc7 Ng4 33. Qg3 Qe8 34. Nf2 Qd8 35. Qc3 Rf7 36. Rxf7 Kxf7 37. d4? In the furious time scramble, they both play well and badly. Here 于 (Yú) probably missed her chance to consolidate her advantage with 37. Qd4± and, as almost always happens in such cases, the tables suddenly turn:
37. ... Rb6 38. Be2 Rc6 39. Qd2 Qc8 40. Bxg4 fxg4. Time control was finally reached, with Black on the attack
41. Rg3 h5 42. Nd3 Rc2 43. Qe3 Qc3
44. f5! As they say, attack is the best defence!
44. ... Qa1+ 45. Kh2 Qf1 46. fxe6+ Kg8. Threatening mate on g2.
47. Nf4 Rc1 Again menacing mate.
48. Qxc1 Qxc1 49. Nxd5 Qg5 50. e7 Kf7 51. Rc3 Qh4+ 52. Kg1 Qe1+ 53. Kh2 Qh4+ 54. Kg1 Qe1+ 55. Kh2 Qh4+ ½ : ½.
44. ... Qa1+ 45. Kh2 Qf1 46. fxe6+ Kg8. Threatening mate on g2.
47. Nf4 Rc1 Again menacing mate.
48. Qxc1 Qxc1 49. Nxd5 Qg5 50. e7 Kf7 51. Rc3 Qh4+ 52. Kg1 Qe1+ 53. Kh2 Qh4+ 54. Kg1 Qe1+ 55. Kh2 Qh4+ ½ : ½.
Despite her taking too big a risk in hunting for a win, 于 (Yú) eventually found the strength to save the day. Photo © Crystal Fuller/Saint Louis Chess Club. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)