In my third game of the first October quad I played with Lev Zilbermintz, who is only a little younger than me. But this detail is not so interesting in comparison to the fact that Lev has been playing for more than 20 years creatively and aggressively. He may be called “gambit man” because in the openings he almost always chooses gambits. For example, as Black he plays 1…e5 after 1.d4. For White’s 1. e4 he often plays numerous gambit variants with 2…f7-f5 (after 1. e4 e5). This actually had happened in my game with him (I was White) and I knew that he was very inclined to play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5. Having known that I played 2. Bc4 instead of 2. Nf3 assuming that such an order of moves would prevent him from playing 2…f7-f5. But that did not stop him; he played 2…f5 anyway (only coming home I was surprised to know that this opening even had a specific name, the Calabrese Countergambit, in memory of the first chess founder and teacher Gioachino Greco living in Italian Calabria in 17-th century).
So after only two moves it resulted in position 0 which you see in the very upper part of the picture. At first I began checking some variants (in the picture they are called “plans of taking f5-pawn…”) where White could win a pawn (either f5 or h7 – look below) and create an attack at a black king (along open diagonals “a2-g8” and “h5-e8”). For example, White could win h7-pawn by 3. Bxg8 Rxg8 4. Qh5 g6 5. Qxh7 but after 5… Rg7 Black would restore a material balance by capturing e4-pawn. White might try 3. exf5 with an idea of 3…d7-d5 4. Qh5 and Black is losing if he plays 4…g6 because of 5. f5xg6 Nf6 6. g6-g7 Nxh5 7. g7xh8=Q. Because of it in a last variant Black should play (after 4. Qh5) 4…Ke7 but that probably favors White. But Black has the better option. After 3. e4xf5 Black may play at first 3…Nf6 and after 4. Nc3 d5 White may sacrifice 5. Nxd5 Nxd5 6. Qh5 with some kind of attack the results of which are not so obvious (by the way Black could postpone playing d7-d5 in the last variant, for example 4…Nc6 or 4…c6 what makes the White’s task even more difficult).
I tried to evaluate many positions “with Qh5-check” after deflection of the black f6-knight by sacrificing my c3-knight, but came to the conclusion that they were dangerous for White (what if Lev prepared them in advance?!). So I had decided to use the plan called in the picture “the plans of a gradual piece development and play in the center”. In simple words I had never took e4xf5, but rather consolidated my position by playing 3. Nc3 and 4. d2-d3. But Lev was very bold and often played insolently and defiantly. He was like a daredevil who teased me with his dubious decisions. And suddenly I did not stand the stress of fighting. Thus in position 1 I played 13. f4-f5 neglecting my c3-knight which Black could take and only then play 14…d6-d5 opening b8-h2 diagonal for his queen. So, an answer to the question for position 1 is “White should not play f4-f5 which could lead to the almost equal position. White might simply take d4-pawn by playing 13. Qxd4 and Black could not resist numerous White’s threats. But Lev had made a mistake. He did not take my c3-knight first but played immediately 13…d6-d5 which led to the almost forced variant 13. f5 d5 14. Bf4 Bd6 15. Ne6 Qe7 16. Bxd6 Qxd6 17. Qxd4 Qxg3+ 18. Qf2 Qe5 which clearly favors White. So in the middle segment of our game (between positions 1 and 2) I played well and all the time had an advantage.
Position 2 had occurred. I had understood that Black was almost lost – his king was vulnerable and should be checkmated very soon. For the winning continuation I had made the 38. Qg1-h2 move, which I thought was good (can you play this move as White?). But Lev had found the only one, wonderful, defense - look at position 3. Can you spot the Black’s best move? It is a sacrifice 38… Rxb2+ which after 39. Kxb2 Qb5+ 40. Ka2 Qc4+ 41. Kb2 Qb5+ had led to the perpetual check! Bravo Lev! He has proved again that in spite of his gambit-dubious style of play the refutation of his bold play is always very difficult.
There are not many conclusions for this report. It is very unlikely for you to play Lev (or somebody with such a temper), with his insolent gambit style. But if you do, please be aware that he (or another daredevil) is very resourceful and creative. And there is the second advice – always study tactics, its role in games with gambit-man increases repeatedly. Thank you for reading!
Congratulations to Yefim Treger for winning our report contest, and a free entry to the tournament. If you want a chance to win a free entry into our Saturday Quads, email a report to icanewjersey@gmail.com, following these guidelines. Reminder: there is NO tournament next Saturday (October 12) in observance of Yom Kippur. We hope you guys have had a great week and we hope to see you at our next Quad which is October 19. Enjoy and we hope to see you soon!
Visitors: 117