Youthful games

Now that's something weird to call a game of chess - "youthful" - when in fact the more "youthful" I was when I played the game, the "older" the game would be! Anyway, let's leave semantics aside for now. I was not a chess prodigy, as I explain elsewhere in these pages. I was 11 years old before playing in my first tournament, and 14 until I had attained A-player status. I would describe this as "normally talented," good but not exceptional. Nowadays one often finds well-coached 12- and 13-year olds earning the master title, playing frequently in tournaments and on the internet. For me, it took a lot of tournament experience to figure out how the game works, and to mature tactically. However, I could read, and I had a reasonable grasp of strategy, as the following games will demonstrate. When no tactical "accidents" took place, my play could often look much more mature than that of my higher rated opponents.

When I was entering tournaments in junior high school, scholastic chess had not attained the popularity it enjoys today and I was often alone at my age. In one Grand Prix tournament in Allentown, PA, there was actually newspaper coverage; as the youngest participant, I was naturally a curiosity figure. Society, with its sometimes condescending views, quite unreasonably thinks that chess is too difficult for young people to understand, and marvels when a young person tries to play it (even though there are of course many more "prodigy" figures in chess than in most other pursuits). There is therefore a foolish stigma among tournament players about losing to a young opponent (a similarly foolish stigma is attached to female opponents), and my opponent, who was all proud of some Memorial Day tournament he had won in California, was so embarrassed to lose to me that he refused to be named! "I'm not going to let you say I was beaten by a 12-year old!" The newspaper honored his request, and so will we (thereby protecting him not from the embarrassment of his play, but rather from the embarrassment of showing his embarrassment!). Judging from the game, one might guess that White would be the inexperienced C-player and Black the wily tournament-winner from California!










Position after:

(1) Anon. (1765) - Bengtson,M (1460) [A40]
Allentown Tournament (1), Jun 21, 1986

 

1.d4 e6 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 b6 4.f4 Bb7 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Nbd2 0-0?! I was just expecting White to play out the normal Stonewall, and that is apparently all White knew how to do, but Black hasn't taken a proper foothold in the center. 7.0-0?! [7.e4!] 7...c5 This strike from the side will ensure Black enough of a stake in the center. 8.c3 Nc6 9.Qe2?! 9.e4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 (10.cxd4? Nb4) d6 and Black seems OK. (But not 10...Nxd4?! 11.cxd4 d5 12.e5 Ne4 13.Qe2 with a clear White advantage.) 9.Qe1!? would be more logical. 9...d6 10.Qe1 I guess White realized now that he couldn't mechanically play Ne5 and g2-g4 anymore. 10...cxd4 11.exd4 Rc8 12.Ng5?! And here he comes. I was at least right that he wanted to target h7; Stonewall Attack players have notoriously one-track minds. However, the knight is ineffective here, so my plan to guard e5 was successful. (12.Ne4 is much better.) 12...Qd7 13.Qh4 h6 14.Rf3 Wow, sca-RY! 14...e5! I had read somewhere that a kingside attack should be met by central play; White's lack of queenside development will haunt him. 15.Rh3?! White doesn't have any real ideas. The h6-pawn is solid as a rock, but 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Bf5? fails to 16...hxg5. 15...exd4 16.Nf1 dxc3 17.bxc3 Qg4! Making sure there's no phony baloney over there. 18.Qxg4 Nxg4 Black is a pawn up and remains more centralized. The technical phase went remarkably smoothly, as it rarely did in those days. 19.Nh7 Rfe8 20.Bf5 Rc7 21.Bxg4 Kxh7 22.Ne3 Na5 23.Nf5 Bc8 24.Rg3 Bxf5 25.Bxf5+ g6 26.Be4 Bf6 27.Bd5 Rxc3?! 27...Bxc3! would have been stronger, maintaining the initiative and avoiding the stranded knight problem. 28.Rxc3 Bxc3 29.Rb1 f5 30.Ba3 Bd4+ 31.Kf1 Bc5 32.Bb2 Re3 Planning Rd3 and then returning the knight into play. 33.Rd1 [33.Bf6 Rd3 34.Bf7 Rd2] 33...b5! The knight escapes, and Black has everything his own way. 34.Bc1 Re7 35.Bb2 Nc4 36.Bf6? Ne3+ 37.Ke2 Nxd1+ The final insult: Black wins even more material. 0-1


That was an unforgettable experience, and so was the following, my first win over an expert. The purpose here is of course not to embarass the opponents, but rather to entertain the reader, so once again we will protect my opponent's identity from his expression of embarrassment. He has been one of the "regulars" in southeastern Pennsylvania chess circles. As usual, in the first round the higher-rated had the obligation to prove their mettle against the lower-rated folk. Here, the case of the higher-rated was not upheld.










Position after:

(2) Anon. (2055) - Bengtson,M (1725) [C02]
Allentown Spring Open (1), Apr 11, 1987

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 5.Bd3!? follows old Nimzovichian concepts. 5...Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 Qc7 This strikes me as an unattractive way to play for White; Black has a good chunk of the center and can maneuver around the e5 wedge. 8.Qe2 Ne7 9.0-0 Ng6 The knight is very good here, harassing e5 and discouraging the development Nd2-f3 because of ..Nf4. 10.Re1 [10.f4!?] 10...Be7?! 10...c5, grabbing space, seems logical. 11.c4! Ba6!? 12.a3?! Ambitious, but 12.b3! is more logical, planning Nc3, Bd2 and Rac1, and making sure the a6-bishop bites on granite. Black would have to change plans with ..d4 and ..c5. 12...0-0 13.f4 Rfe8?! Wasting time. Nowadays, I would have moved the other rook here, or else just gone ..f6 right away. At least I had the right general ideas and was trying to play according to the demands of the position. 14.Nc3 f6 15.b4 fxe5 16.fxe5 Rf8 17.Bxg6?! White doesn't play according to the demands of the position, and Black's pieces jump to life, especially the unopposed light-squared bishop and the Rf8. 17.Qg4 Qd7 18.b5!? (not 18.Bxg6? hxg6 19.Qxg6 Bxc4) is the most ambitious way to punish Black, but 18...Bb7 gives Black good counterplay against White's loose position. 17.Qh5!? is also worth a look. 17...hxg6 18.Qg4 Bxc4 The combination of these two pieces points menacingly towards a mate on f1. (18...Rf5!? is ambitious.) 19.Qxe6+ Kh7 20.Bd2?! 20.Qh3+! would sensibly force a draw: 20...Kg8 21.Qe6+ and now 21...Rf7?! 22.Qxg6 Raf8 (22...Qxe5?? 23.Qxf7+) 23.Bg5 Bxg5 24.Qxg5 Qb6+ 25.Kh1 Qf2 26.h3 is not a good gamble for Black, especially given the difference of ratings. 20...Rf5! The queen is cut off; Black is taking over. 21.Re3 Raf8 22.g4? A serious weakening. 22.Rh3+ Rh5 23.Rxh5+ (23.Rg3?! Qxe5! [As usual a loose center is retribution for a premature flank attack] 24.Qxg6+ Kh8 is very good for Black; for example, 25.Re1?? loses to ..Qxe1+ etc. I will never forget my opponent's frustration with this position in the post-mortem.) 23...gxh5 24.Be3 (Not 24.Ne4? Qb6+ 25.Kh1 Qd4!) is necessary, keeping White in the game. 22...Rf3 23.Rxf3 It is very hard to give good advice anymore. [23.Rae1 Bh4!] 23...Rxf3 The threat ..Qb6+ looms, and White is busted. 24.Na4 [24.Ne4 Bd3!] 24...Bb5 25.Nc5 Bxc5+ 26.bxc5 Qd8 The addition of the Black queen is more than White's position can afford, but there is nothing to be done. Note again the great power of Black's bishop and rook. 27.g5 Qf8 28.h4 [28.Qg4 Rf1+ 29.Kg2 Qf2+ 30.Kh3 Rxa1] 28...Rg3+ 0-1

This defeat did not set well with my opponent and in the post-mortem I had to defend myself against the full extent of his fury. "You were SO LUCKY!!" he said time and again, convinced that his kingside attack ought to have carried the day. Nevertheless, even in the post-mortem it never did, and with good reason. To this day one of my missions in chess is to uphold the truth and to refute unsound, ill-prepared attacks. In each of these games my opponents set themselves up for disappointment by underestimating their opponent and counting on poorly prepared stock attacks, and it still gives me pleasure to watch these being refuted.

Back to my chess page

Generated with ChessBase 7.0