Eraclides versus the Masters Part 1 ~ Slam Dunked by Ian Rogers
Hi Pilgrims,
Sometimes an average player can have the opportunity to play against some of the world’s best players. In Melbourne I was fortunate to watch world champions, such as Spassky and Karpov, give simultaneous diplays. Spassky delighted everybody with his play, good grace and manners.
Karpov received a standing ovation when he entered the auditorium to play, because he had just drawn the 1987 world title match with the rampaging Kasparov. The audience knew that Karpov would never be as good as he had been while world champion, but they admired his fighting spirit, the way he drew and almost won that match. For that period of time, they considered him co-equal champion with Kasparov.
Usually only a celebrity or club champion would be nominated to play in a simultaneous exhibition. For instance the great Australian Rules footballer Ron Barrassi got to play against Spassky (Barrassi lost), and the club champion of my chess club, Essendon, Alex Lemesz (ex Latvia, rated over 2100) played against both Spassky and Karpov. He drew both games with his trusty Modern Defence. It is interesting that Alex was into his late 60’s and early 70’s when he played these titans, which gives you some idea how strong a player he was in his day.
I have been lucky enough to play against a master, international master and a grandmaster. I would like to say that I gave them a few scares (I glared at them over the board - I am almost big, and mean looking, although I am really a gentle, caring person), but in the end their damnable talent won the day.
However, I did not lose quickly, the games were interesting, and for any fellow carrot-eaters, highly instructive. All the games illustrated the ability of the master player to keep to a minimum any errors during the game, take advantage of opponent errors, and demonstrate excellent technique. They also show the different styles of these players. One combinative, one effortless, one complicated.
Among the next few Blog postings, I will show you these games, begining this posting with a Grandmaster, then at some future time my games against an International Master, and finally a Master player.
The first game is against the Australian International Grandmaster, Ian Rogers. It was played in 1981 at a simul I helped organise at my then chess club in Glenroy (Melbourne, Australia). Ian was rated at 2440 which was about 100 points below his real strength. In those days, players from Oz were underated compared to their international counterparts. The reason was that our players did not get many chances to play in overseas tournaments, but visiting ‘big name players’ from overseas usually got a hiding from local strong players if they made the mistake of underestimating their ability based on a dubious rating.
Ian was then about 19 or 20 and was studying Meterological Sciences at the University of Melbourne. I was 28 and the Secretary of the Glenroy Chess Club, an amateur outfit for which we were trying to get publicity in the hopes of increasing membership. We met every Thursday evening at the Glenroy Public Library, and apart from me, most of the players were East Europeans who had come out to Oz as refugees after WWII. Our collective style of play is best described as mad coffee-house.
I collected Ian from his home at Malvern and remember discussing the ideas of Nimzovich with him. I had just discovered Nimzo (I told you I was a late starter - see the first few Blog postings) and was hoping some of his ideas would soak through my cranium and into the grey matter (I’m still waiting). But for Ian, it was all terribly old hat. He had been playing at such a high level for years, that the ideas of Nimzo were kind of obvious and kind of boring.
Ian had a party trick he used to do when playing a simul. He was a very good draughts player, and would play young kids at draughts, while playing chess against the rest of the bunnys with his back to the chess boards. In effect without sight of the board and the moves called out to him. In the present simul, he just played chess.
The game he played against me is a Sicilian, and it was wild, as befits his style and to some extent my own.
Ian Rogers (GM 2440) VERSUS George Eraclides
(My Bunny rating was: Too embarassing to mention)
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 g6
You’re kidding right? George is going to play a Dragon against Ian Rogers. the Sicilian is bad enough, but a Dragon? Someone get a psychiatrist.
6. Be3 Bg7
7. f3
The Yugoslav Attack, the strongest against the Dragon.
But is George afraid? Is he?
7 .........0-0
Oh well, about here was the end of what I could remember of opening theory. How about Ian?
8. Qd2 Nc6
9. 0-0-0 Bd7
I was not sure if I was doing the right thing, but I had a secret advantage. Ian had no real idea how strong or weak I was as a player. After all I was playing the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian, which only experienced, tough competitors (like Larsen) would play. So could George be secretly Danish?
10. g4
I knew with this move White was about to go for Black’s throat, so I decided to try something daring myself.
10 ...........Nxd4!?
11. Bxd4 Bc6
Looks like a good position for the Bishop, with the possibility of some future
threats. The Sicilian is after all a ‘fighting defence’, according to the openings hacks, but I suspect that just means you go down fighting. But you still go down.
12. Kb1
Getting his King into safety. Has Black scared White with his profound 11th move, or is Ian just having a yawn?
12 .........Qa5
Black is still trying to develop some counterplay, and hatches a little aggressive plan.
13. h4 b5!?
Goodness me, this is going to be a savage little game.
Mother’s please take the children away.
14. h5 b4
15. Nd5 Bxd5
I did not want to give up my g7 Bishop, because I was hoping to use his holyness in some kind of attack. Why else fianchetto in a Sicilian?
16. exd5 Qxd5
I win a Pawn against a Grandmaster - temporarily. Should I go for a win based on pure technique?
17. hxg6 fxg6
I know that in general you should capture towards the centre, but I felt that my King’s position would be too drafty on the h-file. Plus I wanted my Rook to have a chance to land a few blows on the f-file.
18. Qxb4 Qxf3
19. Bc4+
Ooops. Things are looking crook in Tootgarook.
19 ...........d5
Take that, you insufferable prelate!
20. Ba6
Note that Bb3 gives up the important diagonal a6/f1 which Ian wants to control.
20 ...........Qxg4
21. Qxe7 Rfe8
22. Qc7!
The White Witch is going to hang onto that seventh rank.
22 ............Qe6
I read somewhere that centralization was a good thing.
23. Bb7!? Re7!?
Touch my Rook and the Queen-Witch is history.
24. Qxe7!?
Don’t you hate it when they call your bluff? Okay, White had to do something, because swapping Queens is kind of bland when you are a Grandmaster playing a windbag.
24 ...........Qxe7
25. Bxa8 Qd7?!
I had trouble deciding what to do in the time available. I was the last player left and as honour demands in a simul, had to play reasonably quickly. Maybe h5 was better and if Bxf6 Qxg6 threatens something.
26. Bxf6 Bxf6
27. Bxd5+
Now I am losing. Did I have a chance to save this game? Could a halfway decent player have done better? Your task, dear reader, is to go back and play over the critical phases of this somewhat complicated game, and see if you could have improved on my play against the Grandmaster. I suggest you do not have an onerous task.
27 ...........Kg7??
What a Gazoo! Kf8 is better, but Black still loses.
28. Rxh7+!
Good players are so much better than the rest of us at seeing the simple, obvious tactics, most of the time. I have often gone into esoteric lines of thought only to be tumbled by simple tactics. That’s the definition of a Gazoo, in case you were wondering: Not seeing the obvious because of the pursuit of the esoteric and complicated. Unlike a dunce who is not capable of any substantial thought.
28 ...........Kxh7
29. Bg8+ Kxg8
It’s all over red rover.
30. Rxd7 g5
31. Rxa7 g4
32. Ra4 Resigns
The late Australian International Master and great human being, Terrey Shaw, once told me during a lecture, that the ordinary player would do better to study endings and tactical themes. Improving your tactical sight of the board, through pattern recognition, is far better than trying to study the openings all the time. So you would do better to work your way through ‘Play to win’ tactical or endgame exercises rather than loading up your memory with opening lines. Rogers has also said that chess is mostly tactics, so you would do well to try and master tactics.
Sometimes an average player can have the opportunity to play against some of the world’s best players. In Melbourne I was fortunate to watch world champions, such as Spassky and Karpov, give simultaneous diplays. Spassky delighted everybody with his play, good grace and manners.
Karpov received a standing ovation when he entered the auditorium to play, because he had just drawn the 1987 world title match with the rampaging Kasparov. The audience knew that Karpov would never be as good as he had been while world champion, but they admired his fighting spirit, the way he drew and almost won that match. For that period of time, they considered him co-equal champion with Kasparov.
Usually only a celebrity or club champion would be nominated to play in a simultaneous exhibition. For instance the great Australian Rules footballer Ron Barrassi got to play against Spassky (Barrassi lost), and the club champion of my chess club, Essendon, Alex Lemesz (ex Latvia, rated over 2100) played against both Spassky and Karpov. He drew both games with his trusty Modern Defence. It is interesting that Alex was into his late 60’s and early 70’s when he played these titans, which gives you some idea how strong a player he was in his day.
I have been lucky enough to play against a master, international master and a grandmaster. I would like to say that I gave them a few scares (I glared at them over the board - I am almost big, and mean looking, although I am really a gentle, caring person), but in the end their damnable talent won the day.
However, I did not lose quickly, the games were interesting, and for any fellow carrot-eaters, highly instructive. All the games illustrated the ability of the master player to keep to a minimum any errors during the game, take advantage of opponent errors, and demonstrate excellent technique. They also show the different styles of these players. One combinative, one effortless, one complicated.
Among the next few Blog postings, I will show you these games, begining this posting with a Grandmaster, then at some future time my games against an International Master, and finally a Master player.
The first game is against the Australian International Grandmaster, Ian Rogers. It was played in 1981 at a simul I helped organise at my then chess club in Glenroy (Melbourne, Australia). Ian was rated at 2440 which was about 100 points below his real strength. In those days, players from Oz were underated compared to their international counterparts. The reason was that our players did not get many chances to play in overseas tournaments, but visiting ‘big name players’ from overseas usually got a hiding from local strong players if they made the mistake of underestimating their ability based on a dubious rating.
Ian was then about 19 or 20 and was studying Meterological Sciences at the University of Melbourne. I was 28 and the Secretary of the Glenroy Chess Club, an amateur outfit for which we were trying to get publicity in the hopes of increasing membership. We met every Thursday evening at the Glenroy Public Library, and apart from me, most of the players were East Europeans who had come out to Oz as refugees after WWII. Our collective style of play is best described as mad coffee-house.
I collected Ian from his home at Malvern and remember discussing the ideas of Nimzovich with him. I had just discovered Nimzo (I told you I was a late starter - see the first few Blog postings) and was hoping some of his ideas would soak through my cranium and into the grey matter (I’m still waiting). But for Ian, it was all terribly old hat. He had been playing at such a high level for years, that the ideas of Nimzo were kind of obvious and kind of boring.
Ian had a party trick he used to do when playing a simul. He was a very good draughts player, and would play young kids at draughts, while playing chess against the rest of the bunnys with his back to the chess boards. In effect without sight of the board and the moves called out to him. In the present simul, he just played chess.
The game he played against me is a Sicilian, and it was wild, as befits his style and to some extent my own.
Ian Rogers (GM 2440) VERSUS George Eraclides
(My Bunny rating was: Too embarassing to mention)
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 g6
You’re kidding right? George is going to play a Dragon against Ian Rogers. the Sicilian is bad enough, but a Dragon? Someone get a psychiatrist.
6. Be3 Bg7
7. f3
The Yugoslav Attack, the strongest against the Dragon.
But is George afraid? Is he?
7 .........0-0
Oh well, about here was the end of what I could remember of opening theory. How about Ian?
8. Qd2 Nc6
9. 0-0-0 Bd7
I was not sure if I was doing the right thing, but I had a secret advantage. Ian had no real idea how strong or weak I was as a player. After all I was playing the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian, which only experienced, tough competitors (like Larsen) would play. So could George be secretly Danish?
10. g4
I knew with this move White was about to go for Black’s throat, so I decided to try something daring myself.
10 ...........Nxd4!?
11. Bxd4 Bc6
Looks like a good position for the Bishop, with the possibility of some future
threats. The Sicilian is after all a ‘fighting defence’, according to the openings hacks, but I suspect that just means you go down fighting. But you still go down.
12. Kb1
Getting his King into safety. Has Black scared White with his profound 11th move, or is Ian just having a yawn?
12 .........Qa5
Black is still trying to develop some counterplay, and hatches a little aggressive plan.
13. h4 b5!?
Goodness me, this is going to be a savage little game.
Mother’s please take the children away.
14. h5 b4
15. Nd5 Bxd5
I did not want to give up my g7 Bishop, because I was hoping to use his holyness in some kind of attack. Why else fianchetto in a Sicilian?
16. exd5 Qxd5
I win a Pawn against a Grandmaster - temporarily. Should I go for a win based on pure technique?
17. hxg6 fxg6
I know that in general you should capture towards the centre, but I felt that my King’s position would be too drafty on the h-file. Plus I wanted my Rook to have a chance to land a few blows on the f-file.
18. Qxb4 Qxf3
19. Bc4+
Ooops. Things are looking crook in Tootgarook.
19 ...........d5
Take that, you insufferable prelate!
20. Ba6
Note that Bb3 gives up the important diagonal a6/f1 which Ian wants to control.
20 ...........Qxg4
21. Qxe7 Rfe8
22. Qc7!
The White Witch is going to hang onto that seventh rank.
22 ............Qe6
I read somewhere that centralization was a good thing.
23. Bb7!? Re7!?
Touch my Rook and the Queen-Witch is history.
24. Qxe7!?
Don’t you hate it when they call your bluff? Okay, White had to do something, because swapping Queens is kind of bland when you are a Grandmaster playing a windbag.
24 ...........Qxe7
25. Bxa8 Qd7?!
I had trouble deciding what to do in the time available. I was the last player left and as honour demands in a simul, had to play reasonably quickly. Maybe h5 was better and if Bxf6 Qxg6 threatens something.
26. Bxf6 Bxf6
27. Bxd5+
Now I am losing. Did I have a chance to save this game? Could a halfway decent player have done better? Your task, dear reader, is to go back and play over the critical phases of this somewhat complicated game, and see if you could have improved on my play against the Grandmaster. I suggest you do not have an onerous task.
27 ...........Kg7??
What a Gazoo! Kf8 is better, but Black still loses.
28. Rxh7+!
Good players are so much better than the rest of us at seeing the simple, obvious tactics, most of the time. I have often gone into esoteric lines of thought only to be tumbled by simple tactics. That’s the definition of a Gazoo, in case you were wondering: Not seeing the obvious because of the pursuit of the esoteric and complicated. Unlike a dunce who is not capable of any substantial thought.
28 ...........Kxh7
29. Bg8+ Kxg8
It’s all over red rover.
30. Rxd7 g5
31. Rxa7 g4
32. Ra4 Resigns
The late Australian International Master and great human being, Terrey Shaw, once told me during a lecture, that the ordinary player would do better to study endings and tactical themes. Improving your tactical sight of the board, through pattern recognition, is far better than trying to study the openings all the time. So you would do better to work your way through ‘Play to win’ tactical or endgame exercises rather than loading up your memory with opening lines. Rogers has also said that chess is mostly tactics, so you would do well to try and master tactics.
posted by George Eraclides at 10:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home