Greetings from San Antonio, Texas! After taking a month to settle into my accommodations for the Summer, both physically and mentally, I was eager to compete at a chess tournament against the local residents. Challenging the local residents is a unique psychological challenge, as I am arriving as a stranger: here at ICA, everyone knows my strengths and weaknesses, and I can say the same about many of my opponents. Outside of the chess, subtle elements, such as not eating Diana’s hot bagel before competition, or not joking around with the coaches and students beforehand, affects the environment. Therefore, I had to go test myself. After a quick google search, I found that Complete Chess of San Antonio offers one day tournaments every Sunday afternoon. Each tournament is one section, G30;d5.
My first round against a 1750 rated player from Venezuela can be described as a positional war, where both sides attempted to create and exploit the tactical weaknesses of the opposition whilst defending their own. But before I get into my match, we must first view the matches played the day before, at the Glen Rock Quads.
Games featured in this report include Navaneeth’s section-clinching draw against Sean, Rayan’s clinic of opening traps, and Yefim’s draw against the new wonderkid on the block, six year old Ruben!
Read till the end of the report for a special announcement!
Yesterday's matches in section 2 were splendid with good sportsmanship between all. This section’s players were Sean Fiterman, Andrew Goldfarb, Durga Nagesh WR Guttula, and me, Navaneeth Krishna. Everyone in this section are 1500s meaning these games were intense and strong and all have something to learn from. The winner of this section was myself, Navaneeth Krishna! Let’s get into the best game that I played.
This game started with the Italian (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 d6) until move 6 where black plays Na5 attacking the bishop on c4. White moves it back and black exchanges their knight for the bishop. Understandable because if black castles without getting rid of that bishop. It will be a large pain because of Nd5 eventually leading to a bad position for black. So after axb3, c6 is played to stop any ideas of Nd5. White plays d4 putting the pawn into the center of the board and putting pressure on the black bishop on c5. Black does exd4 to get rid of that pawn. White takes back with the Knight and both sides proceed to castle kingside. Bg4 is played to attack the queen and white plays f3. This however weakens the protection around the king and makes the knight on d4 pinned. But when the bishop retreats to e6, white moves the king to h1 to remove the pin. Black puts the rook on the half-open e-file and white does so too. Then black decides to push the white bishop back to f2 while severely weakening their king. This also repins the knight on d4. Next, Black moves the queen to d7 to prevent Nxe6 which eventually leads to all the bishops of the board and blacks knight out of the game on the rim. We see that all of the black pieces are now pointing at the white king. So white moves the Queen to d2 to unpin the knight again and pin the black g-pawn because if the pawn moves, white can take on h6 it also supports Nxe6 again. Now, the black knight moves to f5 to take back if the white knight takes on e6 which happened. Then, the bishops are exchanged off the board and the knight is on f5. Now is the first mistake of the game. Instead of playing b4 and trying to go for the pawn on d6, white plays e5 blundering a full pawn. However, it's not the end of the world because white has a lot of initiative. Black takes the e-pawn with the d-pawn. The white Queen moves to e3 attacking the knight and also threatening to take the pawn on h7 if the knight moves. Black moves his queen to e7 to defend. White then does Ne4 threatening to do Nxc5 or Rxa7. The knights trade off the board and the white pawn takes back on e4. Black does b6 to prevent Rxa7. Now white Rf1 to rook lift to f5 and start attacking the black kingside and also to attack the e5 pawn with the queen by moving it to c3. This happens after black moves their e-rook to d8 and then d6. Black decides to double their rooks and threaten back-rank-mate on d8. However, Raf1 defends this threat and counterattacks with a threat on f7. Black moves his rook to e6 to defend the pawn and the black rooks undouble. Then, white moves his queen to f3 to put more pressure on f7 and to start putting more pressure on the king with a possible Qh5 which happens after Rc7. Rg6 happens and white decides to finally trade the two rooks for the queen and pawn and hope black takes back with the rook or makes a mistake here. But black plays this perfectly and black has to play two rooks against a queen. The queen moves to e7 to prevent any rook hogs on the 2nd rank. The black g-rook moves to e6 to threaten checkmate and make a hog on the 2nd rank. But white just plays h3 and both players agree to a draw. This game was very well played by both players with chess.com saying they played like 2100s and had no blunders.
Participating in a chess tournament for me is always an intellectually stimulating experience. Recently, I had the opportunity to compete in a tournament structured into nine quads, where each section consisted of four players. I was placed in section 4 alongside Sid, Sean, and Lei. Over the course of three matches, I managed to win two games and draw one, marking a memorable and rewarding experience in my chess journey.
The First Match: A Victory Over Sid
The opening match of the tournament set the tone for the rest of my games. I faced Sid. I started with the scotch gambit, a choice that immediately signaled an aggressive and tactical battle. As the game progressed, I managed to get a winning position and then gradually gain an advantage. Sid’s approach led him to a hard decision to protect the checkmates that I was threatening with. I capitalized on his mistakes and with precise calculations and a bit of patience, I managed to convert this advantage into a victory. The first win filled me with confidence and enthusiasm for the upcoming matches.
The Second Match: A Strategic Draw with Sean
The second match pitted me against Sean. Sean opened with e4 I played the sicilian, leading us into a highly strategic and positional game.
Throughout the match, Sean's defensive skills were evident as he carefully neutralized my attempts to create an advantage. The game transitioned into a complex middlegame where both sides maneuvered for optimal positioning. Despite my efforts to break through his defenses, Sean remained resolute and countered my plans effectively.
As we started to get low on time, it became clear that neither of us could secure a decisive advantage. With both players having equal chances and a draw being a fair result, we agreed to split the point. This hard-fought draw highlighted the intense and evenly matched nature of our game and underscored the importance of strategic depth in chess.
The Third Match: Triumph Against Lei
The final match of the tournament was against Lei. This game was crucial, as a win would solidify my strong performance in the tournament. I opened the game with e4 and he responded with the Caro Kann, a classic and respected opening that promised a rich and complex game. I went for an interesting line, aiming to challenge Lei’s preparation and test his skills in the ensuing positions. As the game unfolded, I managed to steer the game into a middlegame where I was up a queen for two pieces. Lei's unconventional approach led to a series of sharp moves, but I maintained my composure and navigated the complications effectively. In the critical moments of the game, I found an opportunity to win against a bishop and he had to resign.
Reflecting on the tournament, I am filled with a sense of accomplishment and pride. Winning two games and drawing one in such a competitive section was a significant achievement. Each match presented unique challenges and required a combination of preparation, strategic thinking, and mental resilience.
The victory against Sid showcased my ability to capitalize on tactical opportunities, while the draw with Sean highlighted the importance of strategic depth and patience. The final win against Lei demonstrated my capability to handle dynamic and unpredictable situations. These experiences have not only improved my chess skills but also taught me valuable lessons about perseverance and adaptability.
In conclusion, the chess tournament was a remarkable and enriching experience. Competing in section 4 with Sid, Sean, and Lei was a great experience , and the success I achieved has motivated me to continue improving and striving for excellence in chess. This tournament underscored the beauty and complexity of chess and reinforced my passion for the game. As I look forward to future competitions, I am excited to apply the lessons learned and continue my journey in the world of chess.
In my third summer quad I suffered badly from very hot weather. That resulted in the fact that I did not win any games and even lost one game. But there is another reason for my poor performance. The third game I played with a boy under 8 years old; his name is Ruben. I thought I would outplay him in some endgame (a rook endgame actually occurred). But in fact in the endgame he did not commit any serious mistakes and saved himself being down a pawn.
Let’s comment on the whole game by four key positions given in the picture.
Position 1 characterizes a French pawn structure which happened after the opening. Ruben had not been caught in a famous trap (White threatened Nc6) and correctly traded his c5-bishop by my d4-knight (at that moment I understood that I would be definitely late for my train…).
In position 2 (by the way this position is caught by the photographer) White had a wonderful d6-knight so Black had decided to get rid of it by a long combination starting by Nxe5. However that combination had a defect which was very difficult to find out. But I found a right continuation: 19. … Nxe5 20. Nxc8 Nxd3 21. Ne7+ Kf8 22. Ng6+ fxg6 23. Rxd3 (23. cxd3 was even better). Black received triple g-pawns (!) and I began “taking care of them” (it is a metaphor; of course my aim was to capture them like ripened cherries).
However in position 3 Ruben had stunned me by move 26…d4! He had started a counterattack based on a weakness of my first horizontal! After 26…d4 I could not take his d4-pawn (or g6-pawn) and had to play h4 (or something like that). Luckily for me I managed not only to lose my pawns but win a black pawn.
Position 4 is a bright example. White threatens to give a terrible Black check by his pawn g5 after which not only g7-pawn would be taken but g6-pawn would be taken too. And in this moment Ruben struck me again; he sacrificed his g6-pawn by himself! This was a bright and brave decision! Despite being one pawn down, Ruben could manage to hold a draw and we ended in a position with bared kings (in the game below some moves were omitted).
My conclusion is that despite some small miscalculations Ruben has conducted his game very decently. Bravo!
As previously mentioned, I competed in a one-section swiss-style competition. This means I could face unrated beginners, National Masters, or anyone in between at any given moment. Based on the monthly supplementals, I was led to believe that my first round was going to be against an unrated player by the name of Jaime. I would have preferred to go up against a higher rated player, but I can only beat whoever is in front of me!
My plan going into the match was simple: develop quickly, get a strong attack, win a piece, and suffocate my opponent. There was no need for a positional war as my opponent was only a beginner.
So the game started with me playing 1. e4 expecting 1. … e5. I would then play an Italian game and attack the center, only my opponent played 1. c5. I was surprised: how could an unrated player know the Sicilian? Regardless, we played out more of the opening, and it became clear to me that I was in for the positional warfare that I initially wanted to avoid. However, I was easily able to make the mental shift; after all, this sort of war is the reason we all love chess!
After 9. … b5, the situation on the board became clear: Jaime would attack the queenside, while I would counter through the center. On the defensive end, I had to acknowledge my tactical weaknesses: pieces that have the same amount or more attackers than defenders. After move 9, my dark square bishop and e-pawn were clear tactical weaknesses. Black, on the other hand, did not have any. However, both of his bishops are weak, for now.
After 11. … 0-0, I was ready to launch my attack. I began the sequence with 12. b4. After a trade of pawns, 13. …Nxb4 looks like it wins a pawn. However, that knight is now a tactical weakness as it is undefended! Therefore, 14. Nxb5 axb5. 15. Qxb4 ruins black pawn structure. Alternatively, 14. … Qxc2. 15. Qxb4 axb5 gives white an open c-file after 16. Rac1.
That is why my opponent responded with 13. .. Rac8, making my knight on c3 a tactical weakness after Jaime’s knight on c6 moves. Therefore, I played 14. Na2. My b-pawn and dark-squared bishops are no longer tactical weaknesses. My opponent’s bishops are still weak, but have potential to control key diagonals.
After Jaime played 14. … Ne5, I thought I had the advantage. His doubled pawns weakened his queen while I had ideas of maneuvering my knight to an outpost, getting my rook behind my c-pawn, and creating a passed pawn. It quickly became clear to me that my knight’s goal was to defend the pawns while the rooks would do the maneuvering. Meanwhile, I did not notice black’s idea of gaining a knight outpost on f4!
But my biggest weakness was my time: I was under 5 minutes and had to think quickly! Up to move 20, I think I played a great game. However, as the title suggests, it was time to get spursy. My first mistake was playing 21. c4? creating a backwards pawn on d3, a tactical weakness on b4, and allowing my bishop to get exchanged for his knight. After 21. … bxc4 I made my second mistake: 22. dxc4? My e-pawn became a tactical weakness. After 22. … a5 I played 23. b5? My third mistake in a row! Although I gained a passed pawn, 23. … Bc5 meant my e-pawn was gone. All of a sudden, black’s bishops don’t look so weak anymore!
However, the match was not yet lost: after a few pieces were exchanged, in response to 28. … Nd3 I played 29. Na4! My follow up, however, was pathetic. By moving my rook to d2, it would become a tactical weakness: the last thing I needed whilst down material. I lost another pawn in a huge exchange, at which I knew the game was lost.
The game went on for 20 more moves, until I eventually got checkmated. It was only after we shook hands that I found out I lost to an 1800 FIDE rated player from Venezuela! Considering the circumstances, I felt less bad about the loss, but not great as I, in a classic Spursy fashion, made three mistakes in a row to lose a match which could have been a draw.
Yet, I am thankful to Complete Chess for hosting such a well run tournament! To anyone travelling to or near either San Antonio or Austin, I encourage you to stop by their school and compete! If all goes well, I plan on streaming my next tournament from San Antonio on Sunday, July 7th; stay tuned!
As for the report contest, congratulations to Rayan Zarineh for winning free entry to the next quads, and thank you to our other two contestants for your entries!
SECTION 2 REPORT: By Navaneeth Krishna
Section 4 Report by Rayan Zarineh
Section 1 Report by Yefim Treger
The San Antonio Spurs by Alan Salnikov
Visitors: 357