Fédération québécoise des échecs

Fédération québécoise des échecs

Organisme voué à la promotion des échecs au Québec
Fédération québécoise des échecs

Fédération québécoise des échecs

Organisme voué à la promotion des échecs au Québec

Fédération québécoise des échecs

Organisme voué à la promotion des échecs au Québec

Fédération québécoise des échecs

Bob armstrong - day 4

Bob armstrong - day 4



Blog # 5 - Day 4/ Rd. 5 – Tuesday, July 22

NOTE

1. This blog is duplicate posted: a) on the FQE Canadian Open website ("Follow the tournament"); b) on the CMA Chesstalk. But the FQE website has the great advantage that it includes a game-viewer. So my Rd. 2 game, and that of Mario’s, that are in the text, can be immediately played over. The URL for the blog there is: http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/suivre_en.html .
2. The advantage of the Chesstalk site, is that there is capacity for anyone to comment and discuss any CO matters. The URL is:
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?2-ChessTalk


Starting the Day Off Right – Wee Hours of the Morning

After midnight today (Tuesday), I continued work on the draft Blog # 4 and went to bed at 1:30 PM. I awoke at 5:00 AM – a bit less than I really need for my health, but not uncommon during tournaments. So I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I continued analyzing Aiden Zhou’s U 2000 Section game to be used in blog # 4 (was hoping to get it out today, Tuesday, by noon). Mario got up at 8:00 AM, and went to his laptop to muck around, as he is want to do sometimes – like posting on Chesstalk. I offered to go get us 2 coffees. On the way back I found out the U 2000 section was now back on track – pairings and standings up outside the playing hall. And on the net! So back up to the slavemaster laptop.

Mid-Morning

We later went to get breakfast to bring back up to the room. It must have been something in the air…..we forsaked our favourite Timmies! The adventurers went to McD’s! This is a modest budget tournament for both of us – the bloody hotel parking is an arm and a leg!
Mario then took a nap. I got the whole blog # 5 ready, and it just needed me to finish Aiden’s game, and I was ready to rock! “Won’t be long” I told myself – first blog out the next morning. Whoohoo!

Afternoon

Mario and I continued our respective work on the laptops. I had missed the noon deadline (sigh). Aiden Zhou’s game, which was for my Blog # 4, was giving my computer program problems. It was dithering around, changing its mind, giving me inconsistent propositions….all to say this was neither expected nor good.
Mario and I then went down to the food court under the hotel, for a walk around to get a break and get away from our masters. We didn’t really want lunch – we were going to eat before the round. But we both needed something to keep us going ‘til then. Finally, about 3:00 PM, I finished the annotations. And out went the material to Roman, my FQE techie support (I know nothing; just enough to do what I want to do; not a stitch more. Then I posted the blog # 4 on Chesstalk (getting longer…hmmm….had to use 4 parts this time, due to the 10,000 character limit per post).
I then started my draft of Blog # 5 for Tuesday.  Mario, who has now assumed the unpaid but appreciated role of “Official Blog Researcher” continued his mysterious work. My adult daughter and I e-mailed back and forth a bit, getting ourselves organized to have lunch together. We hadn’t quite worked it all out when we went downstairs.
About 4:00 PM we went down to the food court below the hotel to get some India fast food. While there, Frank Lee, CFC Youth Coordinator from Windsor, Ontario, and his wife (who have a son and daughter playing) came and sat beside us. We all discussed an idea he and Vlad Drkulec, CFC President, are working on. It is rated norm tournaments on-line. There are lots of technical things to be worked out, but on-line matches are not that uncommon now. It is an interesting idea. What do you think of it? Maybe give Vlad and Frank some feedback?
Rather than going back to the room, we went to the hall outside the playing area. I was a bit into a tired zone, and so just sat on a sofa and kind of semi-dozed for about 20 min. Mario took on the role of the biblical gadfly and tried to alert the pairers to some problems with the tentative pairings for the U 2000 section that were on the net and in hard copy on the bulletin board. In any event, the pairings (as they were) were available and we started the round right at 6:00 PM.
Now last blog, we saw that Mario (my CO roomie), who had definitely declared he is not superstitious, had an MLP (My Lucky Pen). It totally panicked last round and fled the scene, leaving poor Mario to fend for himself. This is not good. On his own, Mario lost. So I asked what pen he was using for Rd. 5? (Sometimes I admit I am just trouble waiting for a place to happen). Mario thought about it, and tried to explain to me the Tao of the MLP, and the issue of whether it deserved a second chance. But I’d better let Mario himself tell you about this, and the major decision he had to make as to which pen to use:

Round 5

So, in Mario trooped, a bit apprehensively with his MLP. I had not won a game yet (last round got a forfeit), and so I was really gunning for a win – and I was paired up a bit.
I did win in about 2 hrs.. I am pleased with it and it is below.
So I went back upstairs to work on this blog # 5, and deal with some other matters, one being my daughter and I actually organizing the details of meeting for lunch. I wanted the games to be further advanced when I went back down to watch.
I then entered my game and started analyzing it for this blog.

My Games

(Because new readers come to the blog from time to time, I want them to have the following information, and so I am repeating the template of it each day – I’d ask the daily readers of the blog to tolerate the repetition)

As I’ve said in prior year’s blogs, I like to think “class” games, like those in the U 2000 section, down in the middle of the bowels of the tournament, have some interest. I believe in some ways they are more educational to class players than GM games, if properly annotated. They are understandable, because we all think similarly – GM moves are many times incomprehensible to us class players.
For years now, I’ve used a chess website, Chess5 (http://www.chess5.com ), as my own personal chess games blog and back up storage site – I have gotten to know the owner/administrator Eydun, quite well over the years. I introduced Canada to his website, after I first saw it. Canada is now one of the main posters to this on-line databank. I post all my games, using what I call my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)”, hoping that this makes them even more helpful to viewers. In prior years, this is where I have posted my Open games for those interested to play over. Click on the heading link “public games”, and you get a list of games posted this month so far. There is an option to go back and look at posted games from prior months. In past years, my Can. Op. games have been posted there during the tournament. But I am not doing that this tournament, since I am now blogging on the FQE website, and there now is a gameviewer in my blogs.
My games may not be dramatic, but I am told I am a somewhat messy and adventurous player (I lose a lot!), and that my games, win or lose, are often interesting to play over (some friends say, so they’ll learn how not to play chess…sigh). However in this tournament so far, I must admit I have played quite conservatively, even passively, before this game 4. But I think I am entitled to say that my Rd. 5 game was a bit messier and tactical, and more what I like to think I am (at least sometimes) capable of. You can decide.

The 4 U 2000 Leaders Post Rd. 5

1.  – 5 pts. (Won all games) – 1 player – Germaine, Michel (1947 – QC)

2/ 4. – 4 ½ pts. – 3 players - Thanabalachandran, Kajan (1798 – ON); Petit, Raymond (1789 – QC)); Baumgartner, Christopher (1766 – USA).

Our section started with 13 top players who I termed the “favourites”. They were all in the 1900’s. But a number of them were not in the full Can. Op.; they were only in the Mini-COC and so they should not have been in our favourites group. Here are the true 5 non-leader favourites and their scores – I kind of like to keep tabs on them since, though they may not be doing well early on, they are quite capable of suddenly again rising to the top [Note that 2 of them are tied for 6th with 4 pts.–  it is a long tournament (though we now are past the half-way mark)]:

1. Shah, Omar – 1999 – ON– 3 ½  pts. (See picture in Blog # 2)
2. Have, Didier - 1992 – QC – 3 pts.
3. Weston, Paul – 1963 – QC – 3 pts.
4. Pomerantz, Daniel – 1937 – QC– 4 pts.
5. Chang, Michael – 1912 – QC – 3 ½ pts.
6. Sarra – Bournet, Marc – 1911 – QC – 4 pts.

My Round 5 Game

The time control is 40/90 min. + SD/30 min, with a 30 sec increment from move 1.
Here it is – it is annotated using my own “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS), Fritz, and my own annotations. Hope you enjoy playing it over.

Armstrong, Robert J. (1645) - Robichaud, Nicolas (1715) [E86]

[pgn][Event "Canadian Open (U 2000)"]

[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.07.22"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Armstrong, Robert J."]
[Black "Robichaud, Nicolas"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E86"]
[WhiteElo "1645"]
[BlackElo "1715"]
[Annotator "Armstrong, Robert"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[EventDate "2014.07.22"]
[EventType "swiss"]

1. d4 $14 {0.35} Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 {King's Indian Defence} 5. f3
$6 $11 {Samisch Line} (5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 $14) 5... O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. Nge2 c6
$6 $14 (7... Nc6 8. d5 Na5 $11) 8. g4 {this move, in some lines, like here,
has a thematic minor sac for 2 P's, that becomes somewhat wild. I am aware of
it, and checked before I moved - I wrongly calculated that this position did
not generate it, and so played it. But the good sac is there after all.} (8.
Qb3 Qa5 9. O-O-O Na6 $14) 8... Nfd7 (8... Bxg4 9. dxe5 (9. fxg4 $6 Nxg4 10. Bg1
Qh4+ 11. Kd2 exd4 12. Nxd4 Nf2 13. Bxf2 Qxf2+ 14. Nde2 Na6 15. Kc2 f5 $11) 9...
Bxf3 10. exf6 Bxf6 11. Rg1 Bxc3+ 12. bxc3 Re8 $14) 9. h4 $6 $11 (9. Qd2 exd4
10. Nxd4 Ne5 $14) 9... Nb6 10. Ng3 exd4 11. Bxd4 Bxd4 12. Qxd4 c5 13. Qd2 Nc6
14. Nd5 {(verified depth 21)} (14. O-O-O Nd4 15. Qf4 Qe7 $11) 14... Nd4 15. Bg2
$4 $19 {I had been aware of this situation cropping up in earlier analysis and
told myself I had to defend from e2, even if it allows a N for B exchange.
Then when I got here, I blundered....I just forgot, I thought I'd keep my B....
..totally missing the earlier realized point. I give up a P for nothing.
Nicolas gets a "winning" advantage. This should be the losing move.} (15. Be2
$6 Nxd5 16. cxd5 Qf6 $15) (15. Kf2 Bd7 16. Re1 Re8 $11) 15... Nxc4 {Nicolas
goes up a P} 16. Qc3 b5 $6 $17 (16... Nb6 17. Nxb6 axb6 $19) 17. g5 Ba6 18.
Nf6+ Kg7 19. a3 {Diagram [#]} Ne3 $2 $16 {tricky....but quite inferior. I not
only get the advantage, but a "clear" one.} (19... Qa5 20. b4 Qa4 $17) 20. Kf2
Nc4 $6 $18 {4.13 I get a "winning" advantage} (20... Nec2 21. h5 Rh8 $16) 21.
h5 Rh8 {4.42} (21... h6 $2 $18 22. hxg6 fxg6 23. Rxh6 Rxf6 24. gxf6+ Qxf6 (
24... Kxf6 $2 25. Rah1 Qf8 $18 {7.29}) (24... Kxh6 $2 25. Rh1+ Kg5 $18 {8.06})
25. Nh5+ gxh5 26. Rxf6 Kxf6 $18 {6.30}) 22. hxg6 fxg6 $18 {4.45} (22... hxg6 $2
23. Rxh8 Qxh8 24. Rh1 Qxh1 25. Bxh1 b4 $18 {6.99}) (22... Kxg6 $2 23. Rh6+ Kg7
24. Nf5+ Nxf5 25. exf5 Ne5 $18 {9.81}) 23. Rh6 Ne5 $2 $18 {7.03} (23... b4 24.
axb4 Qb6 25. bxc5 Qxb2+ 26. Qxb2 Nxb2 27. Rah1 Kf7 28. Rxh7+ Rxh7 29. Rxh7+ Ke6
$18 {5.91}) 24. Rah1 Nf7 $2 $18 {8.05} (24... Qb6 25. Rxh7+ Rxh7 26. Rxh7+ Kf8
27. Rh8+ Kf7 28. Rxa8 b4 $18 {6.64}) 25. Rxh7+ {material equality} Rxh7 26.
Rxh7+ Kf8 27. f4 Rb8 {Diagram [#]} 28. f5 $1 {Nicolas now has some tough
choices to make} Nxg5 {Nicolas temporarily goes up a P} 29. Rh8+ Kf7 $2 $18 {
14.06} (29... Kg7 30. Rxd8 Rxd8 $18 {10.00}) 30. Rxd8 Rxd8 {I am up Q vs R} 31.
Nd5 Rb8 $2 $18 {17.78} (31... Bb7 $4 32. Qe3 Bxd5 33. Qxg5 Ke8 34. exd5 Kd7 35.
f6 Nf5 $18 {mate in 22 moves}) (31... gxf5 $2 32. Qa5 Nde6 33. exf5 Bc8 34.
fxe6+ Nxe6 $18 {17.96}) (31... b4 $2 32. axb4 Bb7 33. bxc5 Bxd5 34. Qxd4 dxc5
35. Qxc5 Be6 36. fxe6+ Nxe6 $18 {17.43}) (31... Kg7 32. f6+ Kh7 $18 {14.50})

32. Qa5 $18 {17.28 Nicolas resigns. He must lose more material.} 1-0[/pgn]

Later Evening

I spent the evening going up and down. I watched games for a while, and then went to the room to continue analyzing my game. When downstairs, I also cumulatively got our U 2000 stats from off the results mark-up sheet (so I won’t have to wait for the official standings to do my blog, if they should be late).
I did as much of the draft blog # 5 as I could, and of analyzing my Game 5. I should also note that Tuesday night, the U 2000 standings/pairings after Rd. 5 were posted! Congratulations to the organizers for getting things slowly back on track for our trouble-racked section – we seem to be the anomaly of the tournament, since it seems things have gone comparatively well for all the other sections.

Wednesday Morning

Mario went to bed at 2:00 AM and I hit the sack soon after about 2:30 AM. Miraculously, I finished the draft blog. But I admittedly was a bit tired (this schedule does eventually take a bit of a toll on we 69 year olds!), so I decided to wait ‘til later in the morning to post (avoids the inevitable unnecessary mistakes one always makes when too tired).
Wednesday morning, I managed to get 3 1/2 hrs. sleep. Not great, but not bad for a tournament. I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I reviewed my finished draft blog # 5, and sent it out for posting by FQE (Roman). I then went and posted it on Chesstalk.
Mario rose about 8:00 AM. We happily discussed the fact that we were mutual winners Tuesday night……have to get your enjoyment when you can…this may not happen again! 

The U 2000 Leaders’ Rd. 6 Pairings (top 12)

Round 6 on 2014/07/19 at 10h10

My Rd. 5 Pairing

28 30  Armstrong Robert J. 1845 2  2  Zhou David 1707 72

The Top Section Leaders After Rd. 5

First prize is $ 4,000. There are 42 registered players (one shown actually in U 2400).
Here are the 3 Leaders:

1/ 3. – 4 pts.

 

 

GM Tiviakov, Sergei (2656 – Netherlands)

 
 

GM Kovalyov, Anton (2636 – Canada – top FIDE-rated Canadian, playing for Canada)

 

                           

 GM Van Kampen, Robin (2636 – Netherlands)

 


     

The Top Section Leaders’ Pairings

Round 6 on 2014/07/23 at 18

Invitation.

Unfortunately, the website format FQE uses, does not allow for any comments, questions, etc. concerning the blog material. This is why it is being duplicate posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association national chess discussion board, Chesstalk. There this can be done. So, I'd like again to invite everyone to join into the discussion on Chesstalk by making comments, suggestions, questions, constructive criticisms  , etc. Anything to do with the Can. Open is welcome. I will try to respond on Chesstalk if that seems appropriate.

Bob Armstrong, the very happy U 2000 Blogger 