Fast risers, IHSA rating, a chess philosophy, games and more

Around Illinois

Last weekend was a busy weekend in and around the state of Illinois with the following events:

Hammond Mayor's Open - Hammond, IN 08/13
2016 MWCC - Peoria 08/13
Southern Illinois Summer Open - Salem 08/14
128th Knight's Quest - Deerfield 08/14
Worth Class - Worth, IL 08/14

Here are the largest rises in ratings by Illinois/IHSA players

New to Class B
Jason Drews, Cary Grove: 107 points - 1545 > 1653 128th Knight's Quest

New to Class C
Georgia Wolf, Lane: 126 points - 1302 > 1428 128th Knight's Quest
Nick Allison, Andrew: 101 points - 1345 > 1446 Hammond Mayor's

New to Class D
Jack Heller: 248 points - 1117 > 1365 128th Knight's Quest
Advait Vijay: 191 points - 1042 > 1233 128th Knight's Quest
Derrick Red: 157 points - 1106 > 1263 128th Knight's Quest

Parker Sorensen: 317 points - 575P13-892P18 128th Knight's Quest
Elton Huang: 222 points - 101P4-323P7 128th Knight's Quest
Donald Egan: 190 points - 860 > 1050 2016 MWCC
Nolan Fletes: 190 points - 483P11 > 683P16 Hammond Mayor's
Srihas Rao: 186 points - 825 > 1014 Hammond Mayor's
Nisha Salian: 173 points - 768 > 941 128th Knight's Quest
Akiva Tokarskiy: 166 points - 705 > 871 128th Knight's Quest
Tim Liu: 158 points - 467P4 > 625P8 2016 MWCC
Kieran Cassidy: 134 points - 577P9-711P13 128th Knight's Quest
Aya Baraket: 134 points - 197-334 128th Knight's Quest
Yizhang Chen: 118 points - 805 > 923 2016 MWCC
Hudson Lutfiyya: 111 points - 608 > 719 Hammond Mayor's
David Zimmerman: 105 points - 1400 > 1505 128th Knight's Quest

Congrats to all of these players for putting in the necessary work to get better!  If there are any interesting games or upsets that anyone has from one of these players at one of these tournaments, please email me at joeanthonychess@gmail.com and perhaps I'll post them.


Blitz tip of the weekA lot of people say, "don't play blitz if you want to get better."  I don't think that that's good advice.  Why?  What makes people better to me, on average, perhaps more than anything, is just losing and winning a lot of different games a lot of different ways.  If  you never studied at all, you'd get better if you went and played 1000 games.  Your brain would simply register the positive and negative consequences of a lot of different outcomes.

Blitz games show what your instincts are.  There is no room for bettering your instincts through deep analysis.  Your flag will fall.  What you get to see is what is already in you.. the good and the bad.  I think taking an engine and finding massive weaknesses in your blitz can get rid of a lot of the big issues before tournaments, so you aren't spending 20 minutes in a position where you have no instinctual ability and must find something that is better than your bad instinct.

Here's the tip.  Be like a pitcher in all games.  When you don't have your best stuff (blunder/aren't playing well), be resourceful.  I have two students that are 1446 and 1596.  The 1446 beats the 1596 all the time at our club.  But the 1596 is rated higher simply because he's able to draw more lost positions and win more close positions.  He manages to get good outcomes when he's not playing his best.  That's what good pitchers do.  The best ones find a way to eek out wins when they don't have their best stuff.

Here is the game, where I am proud of one of the best moves I've made


1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. d3 d5 4. Bg5 Bg7 5. Qd2 Bf5 6. Bg2 c6 7. O-O Nbd7 8. Bh6 O-O 9. Bxg7 Kxg7 10. Nh4 e5 11. Nxf5+ gxf5 12. f4 e4 13. dxe4 Nxe4 14. Bxe4 dxe4 15. e3 Nf6 16. Qc3 Kg6 17. Nd2 Ng4 18. Nc4 Qe7 19. h3 Nh6 20. Ne5+ Kh5 21. g4+ fxg4 22. hxg4+ Nxg4 23. Kg2 Rg8 24. Rh1+ Nh2+!

I was proud that I instinctively saw this move.  I don't think I'd play the king to the h-file in a slow game, and believe me, I know a master may look at this entire game like "wow, really."  I knew I was not playing well.  

The great thing about this move is that it simultaneously blocks check and puts white in check.  Therefore, you should first notice that the white rook cannot take the knight!  Secondly, Kxh2 leads to the devastating Qh4#!  But, what if that was all there was.  What if simply not playing Kxh2 made blacks position worse?  Always be wary of the idea of "if he doesn't fall for my idea, am I just in really bad shape?  Well, I immediately saw that if the white king just steps to the f-file, I own the entire 7th rank with tempo.

25. Kf2 Qh4+ 26. Ke2 Rg2+ 27. Kd1 Rd8+ 28. Kc1 Qf2 29. b3 Rd2 30. Kb2 Rxc2+ 31. Qxc2 Qxc2+32. Ka3 Qc5+ 33. Ka4 Qb5+ 34. Ka3 Qa5# 0-1

So, let's go back to the idea from last week.  Don't be dogmatic.  Strong players who, for whatever reason, don't want others to be as strong (and yes they do exist), will tell you things like "never play blitz games, just play slow games."  Well, why not both?  Yes, you should look at slow games as your chance to really see where you fail and where you succeed.  They should be your landmark learning/demonstration moments.  But, what if, instead of playing 25 slow games in a month, you played 16 games at 45 min/d5 and 81 blitz games? I like the chance to get in nearly FIVE times the games.  It broadens the ideas I have and the ideas I can cope with.  

Illinois IHSA Top 110

A few things to remember about this list:

> Right now, most freshmen are not included, because I simply don't know of them.  Please, let me know if a player has transferred, is a freshman not on this list, is not the same person on this list etc. 

> It's designed to recognize the best players who are actively playing; therefore it's active players within the last year only.  A big reason I don't want to list players who have not played in the last year is that I don't want somebody who was 883 in the 5th grade to come up to me and say "hey, I'm way stronger than that man."

> It's non-provisional only.  Too much fluctuation and too much chance that a player is not at their accurate strength

> The list is expanding, but due to not wanting to spend too much time on it, it's a work in progress.  The goal is to get to 150.

1. George Li Jr. IMSA 2374

2. David Peng Fr. New Trier 2352

3. Alex Bian Jr. Stevenson 2302

4. Jacob Furfine Fr. New Trier 2277

5. Spencer Lehmann Sr. Barrington 2202

6. Matthew Stevens So. Whitney Young 2169

7. Anshul Adve Sr. Urbana University 2154

8. Akhil Kalghatgi So. Whitney Young 2133

9. Daniel Bronfeyn Jr. Mundelein 2130

10. Nikhil Kalghatgi So. Whitney Young 2083

11. Jack Curcio Jr. Maine South 2081

12. Rishi Narayanan So. Barrington 2074

13. Hanson Hao So. Bloomington 2042

14. Andrew Fei Jr. Dunlap 2026

15. Miranda Liu So. Stevenson 2010

16. James Wei Jr. IMSA 1902

17. Conrad Oberhaus Jr. Stevenson 1868

18. Bryce McClanahan Sr. Glenbrook South 1833

19. Abe Sun Jr. New Trier 1832

20. Tyler Tompkins Sr. Hinsdale Central 1820

21. Eric Starkman Jr. Highland Park 1803

22. Alec Feygin Sr. Glenbrook South 1789

23. Shayna Provine Jr. IMSA 1785
24. Henry Curcio Fr. Maine South 1768

25. George McCoy Jr. Northside 1765

25. Richard Zhang So. Naperville North 1765

27. Jack Xiao So. Stevenson 1741

28. Patrick Li So. Dunlap 1739

29. Billy Hoseman So. Glenbrook South 1732

30. Jonathan Lee So. Northside 1715

31. Philip Song Jr. Naperville North 1714

32. Darek Nowak Sr. Maine South 1708

33. Omkar Prabhavalkar So. Barrington 1703

34. Cassie Parent Jr. IMSA 1702

35. Shon Shtern Sr. Glenbrook South 1698

36. Will Richards So. Wheaton North 1676

37. Rahul Dhiman Sr. Stevenson 1665

37. Nathan Yamaguchi Jr. New Trier 1665

39. Kenny Kotowsky Jr. Maine South 1655

39. Gustav Jennetten Sr. Peoria Richwoods 1655

41. Jason Drews Jr. Cary Grove 1652

42. Bethany Simos Sr. Naperville Central 1646

43. Vikram Dara So. Neuqua Valley 1634

44. Joseph Isaac Jr. Naperville North 1632

45. Mihir Bafna Jr. Bloomington HS 1624

46. Jack Thain Jr. Charleston 1624

47. Quinn Baker Sr. Oak Park-River Forest 1618

48. Akash Mattu Sr. Naperville Central 1614

49. Alex Lim Jr. Neuqua Valley 1610

50. Harrison Loh Sr. Naperville North 1603

51. Patrick Kut Jr. Andrew 1596

52. Monish Bhasin Sr. Naperville North 1578

53. Arda Sonmez Jr. Highland Park 1574

54. Shashank Bala So. Stevenson 1568

55. Ajay Balaraman So. Naperville North 1567

56. Shvetali Thatte Unknown Unknown 1555

57. Emma Wang So. Hinsdale Central 1554

58. Ritesh Sivakumar Jr. Naperville Central 1552

58. Mindren Lu Jr. Northside 1552

60. Austin Insley Jr. Indian Creek 1547

61. Nathan Saltzman So. Hinsdale Central 1541

62. Emily McClanahan Jr. Glenbrook South 1538

63. Kavin Lavari So. Stevenson 1537

64. Julian Liam-O'Carroll Evanston 1535

65. Isha Gani Sr. Northside 1518

66. Wesley Gizel Sr. Barrington 1504

67. Jesse Wang Sr. Naperville North 1502

68. Matthew Wong So. Lane 1491

69. Elijah Patterson Unknown Unknown 1485

70. Ricky Roman So. Whitney Young 1484

71. Matthew Kosova Sr. Northside 1477

72. Sean Insley So. Indian Creek 1472

73. Jiedong Duan Sr. Niles North 1469

74. Oliver Brady Jr. Evanston 1466

75. Nate Tracy-Amoroso Sr. Evanston 1452

76. Nick Allison Jr. Andrew 1446

77. Michael Dula Sr. Northridge Prep 1438

78. Prithiv Kumar Jr. Bloomington HS 1421

79. Georgia Wolf So. Lane 1406

79. Clayton Davis So. Normal Community West 1406

81. Matthew Kelly Jr. Northridge Prep 1396

82. Raymond Liu Jr. Rolling Meadows 1383

83. Eric Helgemo Jr. Niles north 1372

84. Matthew Tang Jr. Hinsdale Central 1351

85. Arnav Batta So. Fremd 1348

86. Joseph Harrigan Jr. Highland Park 1329

87. Perry Hoag So. Homewood-Flossmoor 1318

88. Capison Pang So. Hinsdale Central 1317

89. Alex Parkel Jr. Whitney Young 1312

90. Zach Warsh Sr. Highland Park 1294

91. Kyle Kras Fr. Andrew 1283

92. Jarun Jannak Jr. Andrew 1274

93. Ricky Nguyen Jr. Metamora 1264

94. Steffano Herrera Sr. Argo 1257

95. Daniel Hammond So. Andrew 1250

96. Prathik Kandimalla So. Barrington 1247

97. Geoff Murphy Jr. Metamora 1246

98. Nicholas Edels So. Barrington 1243

99. Micah Hill Jr. Naperville Central 1242

100. Muhammed Lotfi So. Northside 1240

101. George Polski So. Naperville North 1222

102. Shawn Smith Sr. Wheaton-Warrenville South 1221

103. Riley Wilson Sr. Evanston 1217

103. Anthony Mu So. Fremd 1217

105. Anshu Indusekar Jr. Neuqua Valley 1216

106. Patrick Tippens Jr. Highland Park 1214

107. Branden Wagner Jr. Glenbrook South 1201

108. Rebekah Nielsen So. Normal Community West 1180

109. Nathan Frommelt Jr. Neuqua Valley 1173

110. Jack Wakeman So. Wheaton North 1171

Where did the inspiration for this list come from?  When my son's Andrew team got swept by Evanston.  They sat down with a record of 1.5-0.5 and they had no idea what they were getting themselves in to.  I knew; all too well.  I was a strong 1500 (back when that was a high rating) as a senior in 1996 who just didn't have a team around me.  I watched my Bloom Trail team go up in flames against the schools from areas where there is a far greater commitment to chess than there is in the south burbs.

The Evanston loss lit a fire in three of the players that has inspired me to give them everything I have as a coach.  I thought, "gee, wouldn't it be great if there was a list where a team could look at the ratings and say "wow, this team we are about to play is pretty good"..?  I understand that there are several very strong teams that just aren't in to rated chess, but for those that are, you have a guideline of where you need to be.  

For example, take that round 3 matchup of Evanston v. Andrew.  Evanston went 1800, 1500, 1400 for like four boards, and then had players at 7 and 8 who had not played rated in some time.  Andrew had one rated player, my son Daniel (996) at board 3.  Here would be the matchup today at the top:

Evanston v. Andrew

Board 1 Julian O'Carroll 1535 v. Patrick Kut 1596

Board 2 Oliver Brady 1466 v. Nick Allison 1446

Board 3 Nate Tracy-Amoroso 1452 v. Kyle Kras 1283

Board 4 Riley Wilson 1217 v. Jarun Jannak 1274

Board 5 Dhruva Molnakhar 923 v. Daniel Hammond 1250

Now, they could have a super freshman coming in, someone could be vastly underrated (like Nick and Kyle still are) and I could be missing someone, but when Tinley Park Chess players ask me, "would we still be swept by Evanston," and they do ask me that, I can say, "not only would you probably not be swept, and you should know, without Holzmueller, they may not finish 7th this year, BUT you might even win, and here's the evidence.  

That was what Arpad Elo gave us... an imperfect way to sort of roughly measure what is likely to happen.  Ratings don't win games any more than the much greater number of future NFL players on the 03 Miami Hurricanes failed to beat Ohio State, but they do give you a rough idea of where players are at in the tournament environment.  

It should be more fun to show them right before state when Patrick is in the 1700s, Nick the 1600s and Kyle and Jarun the 1400s.  

The scariest part of this list is that I'm 39 years old and within 50 points of my peak.  If I, at my current rating, were a high school senior, I'd only rank 18th in the state!  Wow.  Way to go scholastic players.  

General chess tip of the week

Learn to know when your opponent's "threat" is not really a threat, so you can ignore it!

This past weekend, I had a scenario against a 1700 who beat me with a very nice sacrifice at the Chicago Open in 2015.  I grabbed a pawn early with my queen on the a-file (I was white), and he began to line up for a kingside threat on my castled king on the h-file.  He brought his rook to h6 and his queen to h4 made intuitive sense at first from my perspective (the game notation has been misplaced).  However, with my queen on e5, I saw that if I simply moved my knight away from f4 and my queen would be defending h2.  So I played a simple rook move.  I turned out that an engine had black substantially worse the more he pursued this dead end "attack".. I blew the middle of the board up and eventually HIS king was on h5 trapped.  

AND, it turned out that had I responded to his non-threats, I would have made myself worse.  

Learn to see when your opponents perceived threat is not a real threat so that you can ignore it and get on with your own objectives!

Weekly study tip: What's underrated in chess study/improvement?

I like to focus on what's underrated in chess and chess study.  If you wanted a study plan that is much more correct that what I can give you, you'd grab $500 and start googling local grandmasters.

However, since this is free, I feel there are some decent insights I can give you.

As with most things in life, the truth is somewhere in between, even when it comes to openings.

The "o" word.  In junior high, I managed to get my hands on a copy of MCO.  I was a 1400 player on a very strong junior high team where most of the kids had many more years of experience than me.  I poured over the book.  My nemesis at the time, Jim Duensing, who the coach insisted was the best player on the team despite not being higher rated, played the Blackmar-Diemer gambit.  It gave me a lot of trouble.  Within weeks I was transposing to the Caro-Kann and the French, which I found gave him trouble.

Yes, I will agree with all of the masters and experts who, upon reading this, would be screaming "you were wasting your time!"  Had tactics trainer existed back then, or had I had a car and a tournament budget, my approach would have been much different.

I suppose if one is training a four year old to become the next Samuel Sevian or Awonder Liang, yes, it would be correct that openings are years away.

It is true that openings are only one thing.  Most young players should know that even if their opponents go out of theory, if their opponents just play good solid chess moves, the correct line will only put their opponent behind by .5 or so on the computer (don't worry, their will be a whole chapter on treating computers correctly as well).

I have several students that play on my son's high school team who got their first post-tournament provisional in the 1100-1200 range.  One has already reached 1600 and two others will soon follow.  All of this has occurred in eight months.  The focus has been middle games, where I believe chess talent shows.  However, I have told them they should spend 10-15% of whatever study time they have on openings.

But why?  I thought chess study until you are class A should be end games and tactics?  You will hear many strong players say this.

While chess openings are only one thing, they still are a thing.  Many strong players, players stronger than I, can't verbalize how to study openings as a young player.

Every player, whether they want to admit it or not, has types of games in which they are comfortable and types of games in which they are not.  My strength in a game where I have to worry about what is going to happen to a pawn on e5 is probably much lower than a game in which after 1. e4, I've played c5.  I don't have to worry about the pawn on e5 and I can get on with what makes me comfortable.

That's why I recommend that each player of 1400 or so strength study openings with the following things in mind.

a)  For a long time, the middle game will be most important.  Don't be like I was in junior high.  Spend a little time and get on with it.

b)  Make sure you have something against everything.  If you play 1. d4, look at all of black's plausible replies.  If, after 1. e4, you play c5, know replies to the Smith-Morra, Closed, Grand Prix, KIA against the Sicilian, and on and on.  Have a reply to irregular openings by white and black.  I love the London system.  If someone plays some hedgehog weird stuff against one of the Andrew players, I like watching them play d5, Nf6, Bf5, h6, e6, Be7, Nc6/Nbd7, c6/c5 and just blitz through the opening.  Have replies ready for f4, c4, Nf3.

I can't tell you how many games I've seen my students win because someone played the Dutch Defense and they remembered me saying, "this is one of the few times where, after d4, you don't follow up with c4, you follow up with Nc3 because it's all about controlling the e4 square and getting the push in before your opponent locks it up.

c) Get comfortable, focus on IDEAS, and don't worry about long memorization trees.  Their may come a time where you have this massive tree where on move 13 you know if black does this, you do that; if he does this, you do that.  And that's fine.  I look forward to the day where you are rated 2257 and I see you working on that.

For now, I like to have an approach most of the time that's just a few moves long, focuses on chess ideas as if you're already in the middle game, and then let's get on to playing chess.

Again, I'll go back to the Dutch.  My students know that after 1. d4 f5 you play 2. Nc3.  Why?  Typically black players playing the Dutch are in a race to get into stonewall formation and lock the e4 square down.  So, after 2. ... e6, 3. e4 follows logically.  After 2. ... Nf6, Bg5 follows logically because if black plays 3. ... e6, you can safely play e4 because of the pin on the knight.

Do these look good in a chess database percentage wise?  Yes.  But they are also grounded in good chess ideas.

I'll commonly be found at Tinley Park chess club saying, "after 1. e4 c5 2. c3, notice that white cannot drop a knight on c3 with tempo, because he already has a pawn there, therefore d5 is fine, and after 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3, the move "Bg4" looks a lot better than it is, because white has many defenses, so go for quick and conservative kingside development with Nf6, e6, Be7 and 0-0 in short order and let's see what happens in the middle game and come back to it if you lose.

d) View openings like this... you're not going to win the game in the opening separate a severe mistake by your opponent, and they do happen, but it will be middle game strength that will allow you to get the quick win when your opponent makes a big mistake.  While you're not going to win the game in the opening, you just don't want to lose it/you want comfort.

e) As an adult 1870 who barely remembers the 7th grade 1400 who was obsessed with openings that I once was... I can tell you that now, I have only one interest in the opening, whether I happen to have a trap/zap that a guy walks into, a long line memorized, or whether it's simply, "if after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 he plays Nc6 (the Chigorin), I know that this is one of the rare times where I'll just play a quick cxd5 and see what happens.  If I mess up from there, I'll learn something"... I want to be comfortable.

What makes me comfortable is when I play it safe for a bit unless I have wide open tactics, allow my opponent to overextend and then get counter aggressive against him.  So, I just know that the 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 would not fit my comfort zone if I was black.

Learn to play in to your comfort and not away from it and you can get a gain in strength while the rest of your game catches up.

........

Opening study to me is kind of funny.  With some, it seems to take on an aura of glamour amongst chess things you can study.

However, I'd liken it to getting a haircut or going to the dentist.  You need to be groomed/have good teeth, so you're just trying to get in, do what you have to do, and get out.

While I've already advised that the 1300 not pour over openings, I'll give this advice on the other side.  I've seen a player above 2000 chastise others for studying openings at all because they weren't good enough yet.  I stood by as this guy berated a 1300 teenager.

An hour later, I watched as a student of this man was paired with a certain player and he pulled the kid aside and said "okay, this guy is going to open this way, if he plays this, you play this and then when he plays this, which he will, play this."  I almost passed out.

Burn these words into your head.  It's only one thing, but it IS a thing.

So, that's a view of openings.  Feel free to agree or disagree, but keep in mind that regardless of what part of the game we're talking about, my global advice to a friend who wanted to learn chess or was a 1200 who wants to be 1600 or a 1600 who wants to be 2000 will always be "lose 1000 games and come back to me.  You'll be better."

US Open, local tournaments and more

The U.S. Open

The U.S. Open has always been the kind of thing where, I wish I could go, but I know for most people, even chess fanatics, taking that kind of time off and travelling is a once in a year thing, if that.  For me, it's more like never.  

I'll be receiving games at some point, and hopefully being strong enough (class A) to even comment on what I see, but a quick look at the submission shows a few things I found interesting.

> I've never met Gopal Menon, but I think it's pretty cool that he finished 22nd, which makes him the top finisher from IL.   

> I debated Richard Roy Martin on a chess topic recently on facebook.  I'll try not to do that anymore, considering Martin's only losses in the Open were to GM Joel Benjamin and GM Fidel Corrales Jimenez.

> Jim Dean, with whom I once had an epic battle in junior high, returned from a hiatus from chess, had early struggles, but still finished with 6.0/9 putting him at 36th.  

> Interesting to see NW Indiana's Bernard Parham get to 5.0 points.  I once played him at a McDonald's in Hammond, IN.  I wonder if, after 1. e4 c5 he played 2. Qh5 at any point.  

> Nice to see Matt Hollaway from Orland Park, who has come out and supported my club, finish at 4.5 out of 9.0.  Not bad.  

Other than that, I didn't see many I personally recognized.  I understand there were tons of great players, but you'll get coverage of all of that from Chess life.  

Worth Sunday quick tournament

I really recommend this venue.  They get together every Sunday at VFW in Worth, you don't have to be there until after noon, you get three games in at either quick rating speed or a dual rating speed that is as close to quick as it gets, and you're out before dusk.  

Some people need to get to the tough tournaments.  And everyone should do a couple Evanston Tri-Levels a year at least.  However, especially for a lot of south suburban scholastic players whose parents can't take them all over, this is a great venue if you just need to play.

Tinley Park Chess Club has a player named Jarun Jannak who was in the 1100s in May.  I try to take a carload to as many tournaments as I can get to.  In between trips to Glenwood, Evanston and the Chicago Class, Jarun was going to Worth to do the quick tournaments, and doing a lot of studying also.  Well, in February he was 1128, and he's 1365 now.  Getting a lot of quick games in is not the only reason for Jarun's rise in rating, but it is a reason.

I visited last week, and though I won the tournament, I got a fight from each player I played.  Argo's 2016-17 3rd board, Andrew Orlos.. dropped a piece to me early, but I was struck by how he was able to fight back down material.  After the tournament ended, I was playing Orlos and teammate Moises Conejo at the same time, when they taught me I shouldn't do that.  

Megan Chen had the big upset of the weekend in Illinois, landing what I hear was a high pressure win against Dmitri Kosteris and the clock.  Though the difference in quick rating is a mere 150 points, the difference in regular rating is 500.  

Megan also had a win over Orlan Smith.  I can attest to the toughness of Orlan, he's beat me twice.

So great job Megan.  Your tireless dedication to chess improvement is admired by many and you'll soon be reaching for higher and higher classes.

It was a slow week in Illinois chess with the US Open.  I'm looking forward to being at the Hammond Mayor's Open in Hammond, IN this coming Saturday. 

I'm hoping to get some score sheets of upsets this coming week and hopefully analyze some of them here.  

Games!

As part of weekly writings, I'll be sharing games from others as they are made available to me, but for now, I thought I'd share a few of mine.

Worth Sunday Tournament 07-31-16
G25 d5
White: Eric Mendenhall 1514
Black: Joe Anthony 1869
Grand Prix Attack

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 Ne7 4. Be2 Nbc6 5. 0-0 g6 6. d4 cxd4 7. Nxd4 d6 8. Be3 a6 9. c3 Bg7 10. Bg5 0-0 11. f5 exf5 12. exf5 Ne5 13. Bh3 Nd5 14. Qe2 Re8 15. Bd2 b5 16. b3 Nc4?! 17. Qf2 Nxd2 18. Qxd2 Qh4?! 19. Nf3 Qe4 20. Re1 Ne3 21. Kf2?? Bh6 22. Qxd6 Qc2+ 23. Nbd2 Bxf5 24. Bxf5 Nxf5 25. Rxe8+ Rxe8 26. Qd7 Kf8 27. g4

and while we went under five minutes stopping notation, white was later mated along the h-file.  0-1

Worth Sunday Tournament 07-31-16
G25 d5
White: Joe Anthony 1869
Black: Orlan Smith 1504

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Bf5 4. Bxc4 e6 5. Qb3 Qc8 6. Nf3 Nd7 7. d5 Nb6 8. Bb5+ c6 9. dxc6 bxc6 10. Be2 Nf6 11. 0-0 Bd6 12. Nd4 Bg6 13. Nxc6 0-0 14. Bf3 Qc7 15. h3 Nfd6 16. Nd4 Qc4 17. Nd2 Qxb3 18. N2xb3 Rac8 19. Bd2 Nc4 20. Bc1 Bb4 21. Bg4 Bd3 22. Rd1 Bg6 23. Nxe6! Nf6 24. Nxf8 Rxf8

1-0