City of Melbourne Open: Back In Front

It's been a real struggle for anyone to hold on to the lead in the City of Melbourne Open at the MCC. First I led after 4 rounds and was beaten by Mirko Rujevic. Mirko then took the lead and was beaten and leapfrogged by Jack Puccini. Then Jack sat on board 1 but was beaten by Nam. It seems that leading players on board 1 are having a hard time of it this year.

The seventh round of the City of Melbourne saw few upsets, a few draws against the ratings and Roger Beattie's excellent result against Efrain Tionko. I managed to win a game that I was fairly happy with against David Cannon. David played well and could have gone into a very level endgame, but decided to complicate the game instead, unfortunately to his own disadvantage. My win takes me back to the sole lead in the tournament with 2 rounds to go, and I have to say I'm very happy with my play. If I carry on at this rate, I could even see myself back at 2200!

Before the round started I was in the joint lead with Jack Puccini, but Jack was beaten by Hoai Nam Nguyen who jumps above him into second place. Jack drops to equal third with a group of players: Mirko Rujevic, Mehmedalija Dizdarevic (a good win against 2200 rated Neidmovic), and Richard Voon. A further half point back are David Cannon, Simon Schmidt, Justin Penrose and Shanon Vuglar. With only 2 rounds to go, I'd say the top places are being fought over by this group of players, though those behind could jump many places with 2 final wins.

In my game against David Cannon, I think this was a key moment. David, as white, had a chance to play for an equal endgame by 29.Rxd4 Rxd4 30.Qxd4 Qxc5 31.Rd1 g6 (I'm not saying these moves are forced, but I remember thinking about this line over the board and wondering whether I'd have any winning chances, but probably not)

I'd be fairly happy with this position as white against a stronger player. It is easier for the white king to enter the game, and white's pawn chain on the king side sits on dark squares, opposite to black's bishop. Black does have a majority on the queen side, though I'm not sure how useful that will prove for quite some time.

David, however, didn't enter the above endgame, refusing to take on d4 and trying to build complications.

Going back to the first position, he played 29.Rc1? Qe4 30.Qa5, but had probably missed that his c-pawn is pinned, and black can play 30..b6.

This completely throws back white's pieces and black's d-pawn now becomes a major passed pawn. The game continued 31.Qb4 bxc5 32.Qa5 Rcc8 33.Ba6 Rb8 34.Rxc5 regaining the pawn, but leaving the back rank that bit weaker.

 White's pieces are all stuck on the far queen side of the board, while black's passed d-pawn has little to stop its march forward. 34..Qe3 35.Kh1 d3 (passed pawns must be pushed, even in middlegames)

Now David played 36.Bb7 A move which stopped me in my tracks! Of course, the bishop can't be taken because of Qxd8#, but I found a plan to defend d8, and thus win the bishop. 36..Qe2 37.Re1

37..d2 (Giving up a queen but getting one back straight away, an done that will be defending d8!) 38.Rxe2 d1=Q+ 39.Re1 Rxb7

A nice picture to end the game with, black is threatened on d1 and d8 but neither can be taken and black is simply a piece up!

Next week will be the penultimate week, and I'm guessing I'll be white against Nam on board 1. Can I break the sequence of results seeing the leading player on the top board lose?

City of Melbourne Open Round 6

It has certainly been an up and down tournament at the MCC. Round 6 saw another change in the lead of the City of Melbourne Open as the leader IM Mirko Rujevic was defeated by top seed, FM Jack Puccini. I was busy struggling on board 2, but was aware of the tension on top board, and as soon as the game is published it will be a great one to look at. The game opened as a Scotch which Jack most definitely knew better than Mirko. Mirko used a mass of time to try to stay in the game and was on the defensive for essentially the whole game. The game drew a big crowd of players as everyone felt the tension, especially as Mirko was playing with very little time at the critical stage of the game. At one point, I heard an almighty crash of the clock, turned to see Mirko returning his arm from hitting the clock and the clock showing 35 seconds, after his 30 second increment was added. Once Mirko started playing quickly, Jack's time started to reduce and both players found themselves below 5 minutes. In the end, Mirko succumbed to the pressure and blundered to allow Jack to win and leapfrog him in the tournament standings.

Jack is on 5/6 and is joined by me, Carl. I beat Simon Schmidt in a fairly unconvincing manner. I have played Simon 3 times, to my memory. Once we drew, when either of us could have won, another time he beat me when I blundered in time trouble in a game either of us could have won, and this time I won after he blundered in time trouble in a game either of us could have won. Sounds like a fair spread! Mirko drops to third place on 4.5 and is joined by Hoai Nam Nguyen who beat Eamonn O' Molloy, and David Cannon who beat Justin Penrose. I have no idea about the pairings on the top boards for the next round, as Jack, Mirko and I have all played each other.

Leading Standings:

5/6 Puccini, Gorka
4.5 Rujevic, Nguyen, Cannon
4   Nedimovic, Schmidt, Dizdarevic, Lacey, Voon

A large group of players sit on 3.5 led in rating by Malcolm Pyke. I think with 3 rounds to go, anyone below 3.5 will be struggling to reach a top finish, but of course there is plenty of time for a strong finish for all players.

Again, there were some upsets this round with Tanya Kolak's victory over Tom Kalisch, and Natalie Bartnik's victory over Alex Kaplan being the pick of them. There will be three rating group sections. There are 13 players above 1900, so perhaps under 1900 will be the first section. Then there are 10 players unrated or below 1600. and I'd guess somewhere in between like an under 1750. Richard Voon is currently the best of the under 1900 players while Bobby Yu's 3.5 with a rating of 1695 is excellent. I'm sure the MCC will note the rating groups soon, and the final 3 rounds will be crucial in determining these prizes.

Next week there is no game as the club is hosting the Victorian Open. The tournament is limited to 92 places, and thre were already over 80 before the round of sixth round of the City of Melbourne Open last night. So if you are interested in playing, I'd enter quickly.

My own game against Simon Schmidt started fairly uneventfully as a Classical Scheveningen. The game carried on with not a lot to tell between the sides, until I gained a little niggling initiative. I thought I was doing ok until I misplayed things letting Simon get some pressure and the freeing break, f5.

I think both of us had missed tactics based on back rank mates during the game which is fairly disappointing. Simon now played 32..fxe4 to which I replied 33.Bxe4.

I was fully expecting Qxc4 when I was resigned to defending an endgame a pawn down. I felt I would be able to hold it, but it wasn't a pleasant prospect. But here Simon played 33..Nxe4? taking the 2 bishops, but leaving white with a huge knight on d5. This was really the turning point of the game, and I think it dawned on Simon relatively soon that his position was uncomfortable. With both of us playing on the increment it proved a case that the easier position to play (mine) prevailed
A few moves later I was able to win a pawn because of back rank threats:

40.Bxe5! wins a crucial pawn, and as white already has a pleasant position, I guess it could be counted as a winning advantage. I was able to convert and find myself back at the top of the standings. It should be noted that Simon came into this game off the back of a draw with GM Darryl Johansen in the Victorian Championship. I wish Simon all the best in the rest of his games.

We All Love An Underdog?

One of the great things about watching competitive events is seeing the occasional upset result. Of course, the best prevail overall, but once in a while, it is most gratifying to see the Gods of their fields brought back down to human level.

In terms of chess, every tournament has some such upset. We have amazingly talented juniors playing well above their level for a game or 2, and well below their level at times too. Likewise, older players with years of experience can sometimes hold, or even frustratingly beat, younger players who may take a risk too much in their attempts to win. We expect Grand Masters to win the majority of their games, and finish at, or near the top of tournament tables, with a promising master possibly giving them a good run for their money.

When an untitled player upsets the cart, and wins a game against one of the elite it makes tournaments that little more interesting. Unfortunately, the day of the underdog is being threatened at the European Women's Championship in Georgia. Romanian Woman Grand Master Mihaela Sandu wasn't expected to be high placed finisher in the tournament, but she is still a WGM with a rating of 2300. She has performed at over 2500 for the tournament, and has beaten some players higher rated than her which has caused a number of competitors to become suspicious and to overtly accuse her of cheating.

The full story can be found on the chess24 website, but it's ugly reading. A letter was sent by a group of players expressing concern at her performance, and amazingly, 3 of the signatories were players who beat Sandu in their games! What is also interesting is not the players who lost to Sandu signed the letters of complaint, and good for them is my opinion.

I realise that there have been some high profile cheating cases in the chess world recently, but this doesn't mean we have to go pointing the finger at anyone and everyone who over performs or causes an upset. Even as I approach 50 years of age, I still dream of good tournament performances. I'm planning on entering the Australian Championships in January, where I would expect to finish in the lower half of the field. But let's just say that I have a stellar tournament and take out a couple of high rated players. Will this raise suspicions, and am I likely to come under the scrutiny of cheating commissions, and feel the wrath of my fellow competitors? If so, then what is the point of me playing?

I'm sure that many people reading this blog will find themselves as underdogs relatively frequently. How would you feel about having played the game of your life, the tournament of your life, and then be accused of cheating?

Running Update

It's been almost a month since I ran the Puffing Billy Race, so it's time for a quick update. To keep the momentum going, I entered the Run Melbourne half marathon at the end of July which I had to start training for straight away. The week after Puffing Billy I ached and couldn't get motivated to run much. The hills had taken it out of me, and I managed one short jog. But since then, I've trained pretty well.

My plan is to run 3 times a week. I'm going to try a shortish run (5-8 km) at a pace that is faster than normal, a middle distance run (10 km) at a reasonable pace for me, and a long run at any pace I can manage. This last run will hopefully build up to 20 km, as I'm a big believer in getting the distance under ones legs before going for the run.

The week after Puffing Billy was perfect. I ran 7 km on Monday 11th at 6 minute pace, followed ths up with 9 km on Thursday and just under 12 km at the weekend. Actually, since then things have been going absolutely to plan, with the short runs getting a little faster, and the long runs further. I now seem to be able to run 8 or 9 km in 5.50 pace comfortably. Of course, I'd like to bring that down further, perhaps towards 5.30 pace, but I'm not sure how realistic that is for this upcoming run in July.

Today, I went further than ever before at just under 17 km. Though I was going at what felt like an easy pace, the first 5 km were quite reasonable for me, at 28.53, and this continued through to 10 km which took me 58.41. I took a drink break at about 13 km, and was suffering a bit from then on, but still managed to keep going at an average of under 6 minute pace for the whole thing.



I am utterly amazed and thoroughly happy about this run and the progress I've made since Puffing Billy. I was running heavy for Puffing Billy, but I'm over 2 kg lighter now, and would like to lose another 1-2 kg before the half marathon. This might partly explain why I found the hills of Belgrave so difficult this year and faded in the last few km of the Great Train Race.

So with 2 months to go, I intend to crank up the mileage for the next few weeks, and then concentrate on regular speed and strength work after that. After today's run, I feel that a half marathon in uner 2 hours, 10 minutes is possible, and I can even see me aiming for under 2 hours in the future.

City of Melbourne Open Round 5

We have a new leader in the City of Melbourne Open. My brief spell at the top ended at the hands of IM Mirko Rujevic. Mirko is playing in the Victorian Championship at the moment, but it doesn't dampen his fighting spirit, and it took just a moment of hesitation on my part to allow him to take the initiative which he didn't relinquish until I resigned in a hopeless position. It was a powerful display by Mirko and he leapfrogs over me into a half point lead on 4.5.

I'm joined on 4/5 by FM Jack Puccini and Simon Schmidt, who is also playing in the Victorian Championship, while among those half a point back is Malcolm Pyke, another Victorian Championship competitor. This all goes to show that the City of Melbourne Open is a pretty good field, and that lots of hard competition is good for your chess. Simon Schmidt is playing more than anyone, as he's also competing in the Box Hill Club Championship!

With 4 rounds still to play, there are still a lot of ways the tournament could go, but the per tournament favourites are beginning to rise to the top. Nguyen bounced back with a win to join Malcolm and another 5 players on 3.5. The group on 3/5 is led by 2200+ rated Nedimovic. There were a couple of upsets on the lower boards with Tanya Krstevska, Simon Dale and John Beckman overcoming players rated 200 points higher.

The pairings are usually up on Thursday and once again, I will not be making any predictions about who will be playing who. To my simple mind, Jack Puccin and Mirko Rujevic should be playing, which would be a great board 1 fight. But I'll make no predictions on the pairings as I'm more often wrong than right.

If it's black's move in the above position, then c4 closing out the light squared bishop, followed by a queen side expansion gives black level chances. Unfortunately for me, it was white's turn, and Mirko took the initiative with a typical central thrust 13.e5! After 13..dxe5 14.Nxe5 Be6 15.Bxe6 fxe6 white has a better position, but more importantly has an initiative which is one of Mirko's strengths.

Defending difficult positions, and trying to negate an opponent's initiative is one of my own weaknesses, and from the above position I succumbed rather too easily to Mirko's powerful play.

Internet Abuse

The internet is a strange world. As a repository for information it is amazing, and some of the things that can be done and shared online are wonderful. As a chess player, I know that I can now play at any time, day and night where before the internet, I'd have to make the effort to travel to a chess club, possibly once a week. And chess is certainly not the only thing that has benefited from online development. But there are negative sides to the internet too, and I'm not just talking about flagrant criminal activity.

As a minor user of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, I see people abusing the sites in bizarre ways. Cyber bullying or "trolling" is rife throughout these social media sites, illegal downloading of media is also rife, and internet addiction is becoming more widespread and recognised as a social disorder.

From a blogging perspective, I try to keep this blog positive, I write it for myself because I enjoy writing, and hope that some others enjoy reading it. I don't seek to make anything out of it, I don't make a big effort to publicise it outside of my close network of friends and acquaintances, and I try my best to link to, or credit, as much as possible so each blog post of mine will hopefully lead some readers to a new site.

Yesterday I was scrolling through some internet sites, linked to one, and saw a photograph that I knew Caroline had taken. I didn't recognise the site, and didn't see a credit to Caroline's name, so I asked her whether the site owner had asked permission to use the image. Caroline had not given permission, whereas I have just asked permission and it has been granted :)

"Alone in a Crowd" by Caroline Gorka (redbubble)

When I search for this image using the google image search function, it comes up with about 70 pages that use this image. Caroline has uploaded this picture to certain sites, such as Redbubble and Artists Lane which act as onlne galleries and sell materials on behalf of the contributors. But well over half the sites using this picture have not asked permission to do so, and are not attributing the creator of the images they are using.

This brings me to the dodgy subject of copyright and fair use of materials. Apparently, the photo above is subject to copyright once it has been taken and for someone like me to use it, I would need to gain the permission of the creator of the image before posting it. An exception to the rule is called "fair use" and this applies to use of an image that doesn't interfere with the owner's rights. A good example of this has been used on this blog before, where I talk about a book I've read and download a photo from a site such as Goodreads, or Amazon of the book cover. From an etiquette point of view, I would still link to the site where I took the image from and attribute the site in a caption, or footnote. However, this still would not be anything to do with copyright of material. I found a pretty good site which explains these issues in layman's terms.

All the sites I have been to about these issues give the same advice:

"when in doubt, assume it’s subject to copyright and don’t use it without the appropriate permission."

Basingstoke Chess Club, A Sad Day

I learnt a little earlier today of the sad loss of stalwart organiser, Joe French.

Joe had been putting his heart and soul into junior chess in Basingstoke and Hampshire since I was a kid, and it is partly his influence that makes me coach the way I do today. Joe's strengths were his tireless energy, his enthusiasm for the game, and his inspiration to the kids who he brought through his ranks. Chess, like all pastimes, needs people who are willing to devote themselves to their passion, and Joe did this spending masses of time organising Saturday morning Junior chess clubs, and helping to run the Basingstoke Chess Club.

After I left Basingstoke, Joe extended his efforts to include Junior Chess administration throughout Hampshire and finally won the ECF President's Award in 2004 for services to chess.

I was lucky enough to meet up with him briefly when I visited Basingstoke in 2012, but I have no photos of Joe, just memories. Since that time when I wrote about my visit to the club, Basingstoke Chess Club have a new website. There is more information about Joe French, including a photo, on the club forum.