N o t t s N e w sNewsletter of the Nottinghamshire Chess Association

2007–08 No. 24 26 January 2008http://www.nottschess.org/ nottsnews@nottschess.org

Copyright © Nottinghamshire Chess Association 2008

2008 Nottingham RapidplayThis year’s Nottingham Rapidplay saw a big increase innumbers, up from 75 last year to 102 this time. There areprobably a few reasons, including better publicity, avoidinghalf-term, an extra section and more prizes. But some thingsnever change – GM Mark Hebden won the Open, this timewith a perfect 6/6 score. Full results of all four sections follow.

Open

Name Grade Score

1 Mark Hebden (Birstall) 246 6 £1202= Mehail Avramescu (Romania) 189e 4 £30

Alan Byron (Wigston) 185 4 £304= Michael Barnes (Gambit) 200 3½

Julien Dudognon (WestNottingham)

182e 3½

Alan Edwards (Scraptoft Valley) 183 3½Ankush Khandelwal (Ashfield) 198 3½

8 David Coates (Lincoln) 137 3 GP £209= John Harrison (Navigation) 163 2½

Peter Mercs (Gambit) 157 2½Pavel Ondrejka (Rugby) 124 2½

12= Ian Kingston (West Nottingham) 146 1½Drag Sudar (Gambit) 138 1½

14 David Levens (West Nottingham) 158 ½

Major (U150)

Intermediate (U125)

Name Grade Score

1 Janos Wagenbach (Mansfield) 121 5 £802= Jamie Adcock (Reading) 117 4½ £20

Samuel Milson (Louth) 119 4½ £204= Ross Blake (Newark) 119 4

Dean Hartley (Amber Valley) 123 4Nick London (Radcliffe & Bingham) 122 4Robert Taylor (Ashfield) 112 4

8 Robert Willoughby (WestNottingham)

107 3½ GP £20

9= Graham Booley (Birstall) 124 3Stephen Foster (Worcester) 98 3Graham Gibson (Gambit) 116 3Kevin Marshall (Sheffield Nomads) 96 3Marcel Taylor (Radcliffe &Bingham)

111 3

14= George Boothman (DoncasterJunior)

116 2½

Daniel Lin (West Nottingham) 107 2½Richard Stokes (Peterborough) 114 2½

17= George Murfet (Radcliffe &Bingham)

113 2

Mike Nailard (Radcliffe & Bingham) 109 219= M Goodwin (Newark) – 1½

James Thomson (–) 99 1½21 Michael Harper (Gambit) 105 0

Minor (U100)

Name Grade Score

1= Eric McKenna (Sheffield Nomads) 72 5 £60Terry Norris-Hunt (Ashfield) 80 5 £60

3= John Crawley (West Nottingham) 70 4½ U80 GP£10

Robert Garnett (West Bridgford) 95e 4½Ben Hobson (Gambit) 73 4½ U80 GP

£10Edwin Justice (Ashfield) 95 4½ Junior=Michael Zhang (West Nottingham) 90 4½ Junior=

8= David Dunne (West Nottingham) 76 4Kim Gilbert (Shirley & Lucas) 93 4Gary Hopkinson (Gambit) 83 4Predeep Nehra (WestNottingham)

99 4

William Preston (Worksop) 76 413= Jon Asbury (Shirley & Lucas) 92 3½

Dorothy Blampied (Navigation) 79 3½(continues overleaf)

1

Name Grade Score

1 Alexander Combie (Newark) 136 5 £802 Keith Brameld (Navigation) 129 4½ £403= Brandon Clarke (Littlethorpe) 126 4 GP £10

Gordon Stables (Eccleshall) 136 4Michael Tate (Scraptoft Valley) 131 4 GP £10

6= Maurice Hill (Nomads) 140 3½Graeme Jennings (Navigation) 147 3½Nigel Towers (Redditch) 130 3½

9= Daniel Broughton (–) 127 3Paul Colbourn (Braunston) 135 3Phil Court (–) 130e 3Jonathan Day (West Nottingham) 127 3

13= Geoff Collyer (Louth) 131 2½Eliot Houing (ACF) 144 2½John Tassi (Gambit) 128 2½

16 John Collins (West Nottingham) 128 217= Oliver Exton (Nomads) 126 1½

Toby Thurgood (Nomads) 113 1½19 Richard Edwards (Gambit) 122 ½

Name Grade Score

Paul Clapham (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

45 3½ U60 GP

Lloyd Clarke (Littlethorpe) 60 3½Andrew Garside (WestNottingham)

69 3½

Aarav Gupta-Kaistha (WestNottingham)

73 3½

Ross Mackay (West Nottingham) 60 3½Keshav Nehra (West Nottingham) – 3½ U/G GPGeorge Seabridge (–) – 3½ U/G GPAndrew Sutton (–) 87 3½

23= Charlotte Attwood (Radcliffe &Bingham)

– 3

Sohum Dhir (Nomads) 36 3Eamonn Lim (West Nottingham) 69 3Dean Madden (Spondon) 46 3Vijay Maharajan (WestNottingham)

– 3

Arun Maini (West Nottingham) 61 3S. McDonald (Doncaster Junior) – 3Amy Milson (Louth) 61 3Keval Rughani (–) 56 3

32= Tracey Clegg (West Nottingham) 58 2½Paul Todd (Ashfield) 64 2½

34= Steven Cooper (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

56 2

Harry Croasdale (NJHS) – 2Mike Falgate (Radcliffe & Bingham) 60 2Neel Kothari (West Nottingham) 44 2Harjit Nijran (NJHS) – 2Aman Ruparelia (WestNottingham)

42 2

Isaac Stables (SASCA) 4 2Daniel Thurgood (Nomads) – 2

42= Steve Baker (Radcliffe & Bingham) – 1½G. Lettin (Doncaster Junior) – 1½Saaras Mehan (West Nottingham) 12 1½

45= Derrick Jones (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

46 1

Jordan Nicholson (WestNottingham)

– 1

Tobias Stables (SASCA) 5 1Christina Wright (–) – 1

Corus 2008The Corus supertournament at Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands,finishes today. With one round to go, Magnus Carlsen sharesthe lead on 7½ points in the A group (with Levon Aronian)after a rollercoaster of a week which saw him blunder away adrawn position against Peter Leko; win a lost game againstLoek van Wely; throw everything into an apparently winningattack against Viswanathan Anand, only to see the WorldChampion defend brilliantly to win; and finally beat formerWorld Champion Vladimir Kramnik – with Black, somethingthat has only happened eight times to Kramnik in the last 10years. Anand and Teimour Radjabov lie just half a point behind.Michael Adams was briefly in contention after a win againstvan Wely, but a loss to Judith Polgar dropped him back to50%. If you get this in time, you can watch the last round liveat http://www.coruschess.com/.

The sensation of the week off the board was the ‘nohandshake’ incident in the B group, when Ivan Cheparinovrefused (twice) to shake Nigel Short’s hand, apparently inprotest at some comments made by Short regarding thepossibility of cheating at the 2005 FIDE World Championshiptournament. You can read the story at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4397 and http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4402, but in brief: the Bulgarianwas initially defaulted; then, on appeal, the game was orderedto be played on the rest day, provided Cheparinov apologisedin writing (he did) and shook Short’s hand (he did). Short wonin highly determined fashion.

Many people believe that this was actually a test of the ruleson behalf of Cheparinov’s compatriot, Veselin Topalov(Cheparinov is Topalov’s second, and they share the samemanager) ahead of the Topalov–Kramnik game. No love is lostbetween those two after their acrimonious 2006 WorldChampionship match, and when they sat down to play thewhole handshake issue was avoided by the simple expedientof neither player offering his hand. But what happened on theboard in that game proved to be the real sensation...

Topalov, Veselin – Kramnik, VladimirCCT 2008 Wijk aan Zee, 22.01.2008

I make no excuses for relying on computer analysis for thenotes in this game (but I have tried to avoid giving too manyindigestible variations). Other sources include Topalov’s owncomments in the press conference and Mihail Marin’s notesfor ChessBase. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.0–0 Nbd711.Ne5 Bg7 This is a very well known position in the Semi-Slav. Many of today’s stars have been willing to take one sideor other in this position: Kramnik and Radjabov have taken theWhite side, for instance, while Anand and Aronian have playedBlack. Here Kramnik decides to play it as Black. 12.Nxf7!?(12.Nxd7 is the usual move)

I’m not sure that using ‘!?’ is adequate for this move, whichlooks like something that a 10-year-old might play after seeinga few sacrificial games by Tal: sacrifices always lead to winningattacks, don’t they? As crazy as it looks, however, there’s noobvious refutation. During the press conference after thegame, Topalov revealed that this was an idea discovered by hissecond, Ivan Cheparinov, three years ago. The Bulgarians hadbeen saving it up for a suitably important occasion. Cheparinovrevealed that some of his analysis extends up to move 40 orso. It also transpired that the move wasn’t new, either –

2

although there are no examples in the ChessBase database,unknown to Topalov and co. it had been played in a couple ofrecent correspondence games. So what does White get forthe piece sacrifice? Well, first of all, the Black king is somewhatexposed. Secondly, the white squares on Black’s kingside arenow very weak. In particular, g6 and e6 are vulnerable.Thirdly, after e5, Ne4 and Nd6 White gets a very good squarefor the knight. Fourthly, the black bishop at b7 is out of thegame for some time. And finally, Black’s pieces are all ratherdiscoordinated. But does this add up to a whole piece? Thereis certainly no immediate way to regain the sacrificed material,so White has to hope that these advantages will endure for awhile and that the defence of such a position will prove toodifficult.

12...Kxf7 13.e5 13.f4 was played in the correspondencegames mentioned above (Nacu–Brodda, ICCF 2006 andBrodda–Zidu, ICCF 2007; both drawn). This a completelydifferent approach – attacking down the f-file – from thatadopted by Topalov 13...Nd5 13...Ne8 doesn’t look all thatpromising, but it does stop White’s knight from reaching d6. Aquick look with the computer suggests that White should dowell here, but some serious analysis would be needed to besure 14.Ne4 Ke7 15.Nd6 Qb6 Now White starts to playagainst the white-square weaknesses 16.Bg4

16... Raf8 White was threatening 17.Bxe6 Kxe6 18.Qh5,which should win 17.Qc2 Now 17.Bxe6 fails to 17...Kxe6 18.Qh5 Rhg8 19.Qg6+ Ke7 20.e6 Bxd4 21.Qh7+ Rg7 22.Qxh6Nc5 and White’s attack is practically over 17...Qxd4? Thisappears to be Kramnik's first mistake – that was Topalov’sopinion in the press conference. The following day, theveterans Jan Timman and Ljubomir Ljubojevic, playing in theHonorary Tournament at the same event, repeated thevariation up to this point. Ljubojevic then played 17...Rhg8 andwent on to win after Timman played 18.Rfe1. My computer isquite adamant that White should play a rook to d1 here, whenthe game appears to be finely balanced, but I’m not sure that Icompletely trust the computer 18.Qg6 Qxg4 19.Qxg7+Kd8 20.Nxb7+ Kc8 Kramnik has given back the piece to tryto get his king out of harm's way – not an unreasonableapproach. But Topalov keeps blasting away 21.a4 b4 22.Rac1c3 23.bxc3 b3 Black wants to keep all of the queenside filesclosed. The computer evaluation has gradually shifted from‘approximately equal’ to ‘significant advantage for White’ overthe last few moves without being able to pinpoint an obviousWhite mistake 24.c4 Rfg8 25.Nd6+ Kc7 26.Qf7 Rf8

27.cxd5?! Another critical moment. 27.h3 appears to be thebest move: 27...Rxf7 28.hxg4 Nf4 29.Nxf7 Ne2+ 30.Kh2Nxc1 31.Rxc1 Rb8. Topalov was worried at the time thatalthough White is now a piece up, the the absence of theknight and bishop from the queenside might allow Black tomake something of the b-pawn. And anyway, there was aqueen sacrifice just begging to be played... 27...Rxf7 28.Rxc6+ Kb8 29.Nxf7 Re8? Losing. There was a miracle saveavailable after 29...Qe2! 30.Rc3 (apologies for the analysiswhich follows, but it’s the only way to explain the position: thethreat was 30... Qxf1+ 31.Kxf1 b2 32.Nxh8 b1Q+ 33.Ke2Qe4+ 34.Kf1 Qd3+ 35.Ke1 Qxd5 36.Rd6 Qe4+ 37.Kd2 Kc738.f3 (38.Nf7 Qg6) 38...Qa8 and the knight is lost; and if Whiteignores the threat by playing 30.dxe6 then the draw is forced:30...Qxf1+ 31.Kxf1 b2 32.exd7 b1Q+ 33.Ke2 Qe4+ 34.Kd2Qd4+ (34...Qxc6 35.e6+ Ka8 36.Nxh8 Qd5+ also draws) 35.Kc1 Qa1+ 36.Kd2 Qd4+, with a perpetual) 30...b2 31.Rb3+Ka8 32.Nxh8 Nc5 33.Rb5 Nxa4 34.Rxb2 (White only riskslosing by trying to keep the rook on the b-file: 34.Rb4 a5 35.Rb3? Nc5 36.Rb6 Ka7 37.Rxb2 Qxb2) 34...Qxb2 35.dxe6. Thisposition is hard to assess, but the computer thinks it’s deadlevel, so Kramnik would undoubtedly have done better to godown this route.

30.Nd6 Rh8 Black has just handed White two tempi,which is catastrophic 31.Rc4 Qe2 32.dxe6 Nb6 33.Rb4Ka8 34.e7?! Whoops! Topalov accidentally blunders the pawnaway, but it only delays the win 34...Nd5 35.Rxb3 Nxe7 36.Rfb1 Nd5 37.h3?! 37.R3b2 is stronger 37...h5? 37...Nf4makes White work harder, but he can reached a wonendgame: 38.Bxf4 gxf4 39.Nb5 Qxe5 40.Rc1 Rb8 41.Nc7+Qxc7 42.Rxc7 Rxb3 43.Rc4. Now Topalov mops up quickly38.Nf7 Rc8 39.e6 a6 White was threatening mate: 40.Rb8+Rxb8 41.Rxb8# 40.Nxg5 h4 41.Bd6 Rg8 42.R3b2 Qd3 43.e7 Nf6 44.Be5 Nd7 45.Ne6 1–0 There is no good defenceto the threat of 46.Nc7+ Ka7 47.Rb7#

There is clearly a lot of analytical work to be done on thisopening variation, and it will be interesting to see who will benext to test the sacrifice.

I mentioned the press conferences above. Some of them areabsolutely fascinating (for example, Topalov’s for this game,and the one by Ljubojevic the following day) and you can findthem all at ChessVibes (http://www.chessvibes.com/videos/).They are typically 20–30 minutes long, and you have toconcentrate quite hard to follow the variations (GMs tend tothink a little too fast for most of us), but you can learn a lotfrom what these players have to say.

3

Gibraltar InternationalRichard Webster (Ashfield) is playing in this year’s GibraltarInternational, a 200-player Swiss packed with GMs and othertitled players. After five rounds, Richard has 2 points.

There is also a David Brown playing in the event, but I don’tknow if that’s Long Eaton’s player or not. Does anybodyknow?

More details and live games at http://www.gibraltarchesscongress.com/gib2008/

Amisha Parmar selected for EnglandWest Nottingham’s Amisha Parmar has been called up for thefull England team for the first time. She will play in the NordicChallenge, a four-way team tournament contested by England,Latvia, Sweden and hosts Norway, from 15–17 February.More details at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/national/2008/pr-nordic_jan08.htm.

Ashfield’s new web siteAshfield have a spiffy new web site at http://www.ashfieldchessclub.org.uk/. Update your bookmarks/favourites/links.

January rapidplay gradesThe six-monthly ECF rapidplay grading list was published on22 January. Check your grade at http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/.

League results

Division 1

Mansfield 1 – Long Eaton

1 Tait, J. (191) 1 – 0 Evans, R. (186)2 Cantrill, C. (160) 1 – 0 Brown, D. (148)3 Morrison, K. (158) 1 – 0 Robins, A. (133)4 Wagenbach, J. (142) 0 – 1 Davies, N. (117)5 Oldham, B. (125) 1 – 0 Bryce, W. (81)

4 – 1

West Bridgford 1 – University 2

1 Richmond, R. (191) 1 – 0 Grewal, B. (166)2 Truman, R. (167) ½ – ½ Hillman, J. (168)3 Walker, T. (168) ½ – ½ Emanuel, J. (166)4 Place, W. (147) 1 – 0 Thompson, I. (162)5 Thompson, B. (141) 1 – 0 Walters, K. (130)

4 – 1

University 1 – University 2

1 Posazhennikov, A. (199) ½ – ½ Wells, D. (170)2 Lam, P. (177) 1 – 0 Grewal, B. (166)3 Walker, A. (158) ½ – ½ Emanuel, J. (166)4 Lee, D. (158) ½ – ½ Clare, A. (166)5 Ray, W. (137) ½ – ½ Thompson, I. (162)

3 – 2

Division 2

*West Nottingham 2 – Ashfield 2

1 Lin, D. (132) 0 – 1 Taylor, R. (129)2 Day, J. (127) ½ – ½ Graham, N. (129)3 Collins, J. (122) ½ – ½ Robinson, A. (124)4 Burley, P. (111) ½ – ½ Cranmer, S. (132)5 Nehra, P. (99) 1 – 0 Morgan, D. P. (109)

2½ – 2½

Gambit 2 – Mansfield 2

1 Hunter, S. (141) 0 – 1 Wagenbach, J. (142)2 Sudar, D. (138) 0 – 1 Smith, V. (129)3 Tassi, J. (128) ½ – ½ Oldham, B. (125)4 Roper, K. (126) 1 – 0 Default (–)5 Edwards, R. (122) 1 – 0 Walker, R. (104)

3 – 2½ point penalty applied: Rule D9

Division 3

Navigation 2 – Nomads 1

1 Harvey, K. (143) ½ – ½ Hill, M. (140)2 Brameld, K. (129) ½ – ½ Exton, O. (126)3 Moore, M. (99) 0 – 1 Thurgood, T. (114)4 Frings, M. (74) 0 – 1 Flynn, D. (122)5 D’Souza, C. (–) 0 – 1 Pynegar, E. (122)

1 – 4

Division 4

*West Nottingham 4 – Grantham 2

1 Willoughby, R. (107) 0 – 1 Pierbattisti, G. (151)2 Berdunov, N. (91) ½ – ½ Cumbers, C. (75)3 Lim, E. (99) ½ – ½ Allgood, R. (83)4 Thacker, S. (106) ½ – ½ Neumann, P. (62)5 Crawley, J. (70) 1 – 0 Default (–)

2½ – 2½

Nomads 3 – Ashfield 4

1 Cronshaw, D. (96) 0 – 1 Morrey, A. (107)2 Smith, P. (85) 0 – 1 Potter, C. (96)3 Dawson, R. (80) ½ – ½ McIntosh, S. (94)4 Dhir, S. (40) 0 – 1 Justice, E. (86)5 Thurgood, D. (–) 0 – 1 Dyce, R. (79)

½ – 4½

Gambit 4 – Radcliffe & Bingham 2

1 Hobson, B. (86) 0 – 1 Murfet, G. (110)2 Ali, H. (84) ½ – ½ Nailard, M. (119)3 Padvis, D. (96) ½ – ½ Redburn, B. (103)4 Groves, A. (61) 0 – 1 Morrell, L. (83)5 Heath, K. (55) ½ – ½ Morley, S. (80)

1½ – 3½

Division 5

*University 4 – West Bridgford 3

Details awaited

1½ – 2½

League tables

Division 1

Team P W D L F A Df Pn Pt

1 Gambit 1 8 7 0 1 28 12 16 0 14

2 University 1 9 6 1 2 26½ 18½ 8 0 133 West Bridgford 1 9 4 1 4 22 23 –1 0 94 Long Eaton 8 4 0 4 19½ 20½ –1 0 85 Mansfield 1 8 3 1 4 18 22 –4 0 76 Ashfield 1 8 1 4 3 18 22 –4 0 6

7 University 2 9 3 0 6 20½ 24½ –4 0 68 West Nottingham 1 7 1 1 5 12½ 22½ –10 0 3

4

Division 2

Team P W D L F A Df Pn Pt

1 Grantham 1 8 5 1 2 25½ 14½ 11 0 112 Newark 1 8 5 1 2 25½ 14½ 11 0 11

3 Ashfield 2 8 4 3 1 24 16 8 0 114 Navigation 1 8 5 1 2 24 16 8 0 115 West Nottingham 2 8 3 3 2 20 20 0 0 96 Gambit 2 8 3 2 3 18½ 21½ –3 0 8

7 Radcliffe & Bingham 1 8 0 1 7 13½ 26½ –13 0 18 Mansfield 2 8 1 0 7 9 31 –22 –4 –2

Division 3

Team P W D L F A Df Pn Pt

1 West Nottingham 3 7 6 0 1 23 12 11 0 122 Nomads 1 8 4 2 2 22½ 17½ 5 0 10

3 University 3 6 4 1 1 19 11 8 0 94 Nomads 2 8 2 2 4 19 21 –2 0 65 Navigation 2 6 3 0 3 13 17 –4 0 66 Gambit 3 7 2 1 4 13½ 21½ –8 0 5

7 Newark 2 6 1 1 4 13 17 –4 0 38 Ashfield 3 6 0 3 3 12 18 –6 0 3

Division 4

Team P W D L F A Df Pn Pt

1 Ashfield 4 8 6 0 2 22½ 17½ 5 0 122 West Nottingham 4 8 4 3 1 25½ 14½ 11 0 11

3 Grantham 2 7 4 1 2 20 15 5 0 94 Nomads 3 7 2 2 3 17½ 17½ 0 0 65 Gambit 4 7 3 0 4 16 19 –3 0 6

6 West Nottingham 5 7 1 2 4 14 21 –7 0 47 Radcliffe & Bingham 2 6 1 0 5 9½ 20½ –11 0 2

Division 5

Team P W D L F A Df Pn Pt

1 West Bridgford 2 7 6 0 1 19½ 8½ 11 0 122 West Bridgford 3 8 4 2 2 17½ 14½ 3 0 10

3 Navigation 3 7 3 3 1 16 12 4 0 94 West Nottingham 6 7 3 1 3 13½ 14½ –1 0 75 Ashfield 5 7 2 2 3 14½ 13½ 1 0 66 University 4 7 2 1 4 13 15 –2 0 57 West Nottingham 7 7 0 1 6 6 22 –16 0 1

5