In a creative game, IM Molner scored an important victory for the Scorpions, moving them up to third place in the division.
This is the ninth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2012 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
12th Place: IM Mackenzie Molner (ARZ) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0
The already interesting game took another twist with 37. Nxg6?!, with White eventually getting the best of the complications
GM-elect Robert Hungaski (5th Place, 16 Points): Personally, the more I think about chess openings and the direction they’re going, the more reluctant I am to embrace a pet line or even play the same opening more than two or three times. At the pace that information is flowing right now, the amount of work and time required to have a line “worked out” does not seem to justify the payout. Maybe I’m saying this because I’m usually on the receiving end of the theoretical spankings. In any case, it seems to be working for Molner who has one of the sharpest repertoires I’ve ever seen. What’s more, he plays his lines unconditionally. In this game, he came up with the novelty 16. O-O (16. f4 was the precedent, though White did include this on move 26, the purpose of which seems to control the f5 square and keep the h6 Knight out of the game). I doubt this position was new to him, and more kudos to him for playing it while Houdini is reluctant to give its seal of approval. A very tense game where Black defended quite stubbornly but was nonetheless unable to untangle his pieces.
GM Alejandro Ramirez (6th Place, 15 Points): Always refreshing to see an Evans gambit. The game was hard fought and double edged, with White playing a fantastic initiative that eventually landed him the full point.
FM Alisa Melekhina (8th Place, 13 Points): Leave it to Molner to make fireworks out of even 1. e4 e5. Molner employed his pet Evans Gambit, which he indiscriminately uses against GMs and anyone who is willing to take the Pawn. Schroer accepted the challenge and played a line in which White ends up an exchange down, daring Molner to prove the soundness of the opening.
He did prove that the line was sound – at least in OTB play where the clock is ticking, the spectators are watching, the team is relying, and the pressure is on to make precise decisions. That is after all what chess is about. These practical aspects of the game cannot be dissociated from chess itself. Sure, it’s easy to pop open an analysis engine and in hindsight criticize Black for missing defenses such as 29… Re8 or 31… Ng8. But through his vast experience in openings that always keeps the opponent on his toes, Molner has mastered the art of coordinating his pieces in such a way that the (human) opponent will eventually collapse under pressure.
For example, the computer shows that 19. Ne4 would equalize, even though White is down a considerable amount of material. Nevertheless, Molner opted to instead preserve the Bishop, and place it menacingly on b2. This decision was probably worth it, especially if it shaved some time off of Black’s clock because he now had to calculate an f6 sacrifice at every move. Even though it looked like Schroer was doing fine by advancing his pawns, the progress was illusory. In the blink of an eye, White’s two Bishops and Queen forcefully jumped to life, and Black was inexorably punished for his slight imprecision.
Molner’s crafty style of play is falling out of fashion, mainly because home preparation with computers may negate opening tricks. However, mounds of accurate prep tend to lose the human element of chess, in which it is up to the players to use their creativity to outwit their opponent OTB. Chess should be recognized as a competition between two players, not two analysis engines channelled through the memory of the two players. The game symbolizes this fading style of chess. Because it represents a unique contribution to the USCL, I have to rank it highly.
FM Ron Young (14th Place, 7 Points): I have a theory about the difference between GMs and weaker players. It is not that the GM looks farther ahead but that he looks farther up the board. That is, they are always thinking 8×8 while the rest of us are thinking 7×7 or even 6×6. To exemplify, I have recently been looking at a book of Sam Loyd’s problems and have been struck by how often the key move is not backwards or otherwise paradoxical, but simply very long; so long than many are too lazy to drag their eyeballs so far along the board. Let me therefore express my admiration at the series of long moves made by White at the end of this game, which up till then was interesting, and though not perfectly played, in my opinion, considering the unusual positions that the players were continually confronted with, they did a pretty good job. Still, this is the big leagues and so is the competition.
IM David Pruess (16th Place, 5 Points): I love some aspects of Molner’s opening, but I feel like the play was pretty inconsistent in the middlegame. In a way that just makes the whole game not feel crisp to me.
GM Alex Yermolinsky (18th Place, 3 Points): The Evans Gambit lives up to its reputation: White gets just enough to compensate for the material deficit. In this case Molner had to throw in the exchange. Schroer’s problem was the abundance of choices, and as often happens, he kept postponing the decision until he got low on time. 17… Kh8 and 21… Qe8 could easily be improved upon. However, Black was still doing well until his big error on move 31. Molner’s gamely effort would have given him higher marks if it wasn’t for his slip-up on move 37, when White was already winning. Of course, the punch-drunk Schroer missed his chance and went down meekly.
Total Score of Molner vs Schroer: (12th Place, 59 Points)
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Stay tuned for eleven more such articles as the field shrinks by one game almost every day to see which of the following games will be the 2012 Game of the Year!
Week 3: SM Robert Perez (MIA) vs GM Julio Sadorra (DAL) 0-1 Article
Week 5: GM Vladimir Romanenko (MAN) vs GM Alex Stripunsky (NJ) 0-1 Article
Week 6: FM Eric Rodriguez (MIA) vs IM Justin Sarkar (CON) 1/2-1/2 Article
Week 8: GM Tamaz Gelashvili (NY) vs GM Sam Shankland (NE) 1-0 Article
Week 9: GM Tamaz Gelashvili (NY) vs SM William Fisher (PHI) 1/2-1/2 Article
Week 10: FM Kazim Gulamali (BOS) vs GM Larry Kaufman (BAL) 1-0 Article
Quarterfinals: SM Matt Herman (NY) vs IM Eli Vovsha (MAN) 1-0 Article
Wildcard #1: GM Mikheil Kekelidze (CON) vs FM Kassa Korley (CAR) 0-1 Article
Wildcard #2: GM Alex Stripunsky (NJ) vs GM Tamaz Gelashvili (NY) 0-1 Article
Wildcard #4: IM Priyadharshan Kannappan (STL) vs FM Kassa Korley (CAR) 1-0 Article
Wildcard #7: GM Alex Stripunsky (NJ) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article
Eliminated:
12th Place (59 Points): IM Mackenzie Molner (ARZ) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (59 Points): GM Vladimir Romanenko (MAN) vs GM Tamaz Gelashvili (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (58 Points): IM Georgi Orlov (SEA) vs GM Conrad Holt (DAL) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (57 Points): NM Jared Defibaugh (BAL) vs NM Justus Williams (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (48 Points): GM Ben Finegold (STL) vs GM Niclas Huschenbeth (BAL) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (37 Points): NM Joshua Sinanan (SEA) vs IM Shahin Mohandesi (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (33 Points): SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) vs GM Conrad Holt (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (30 Points): FM Ralph Zimmer (BAL) vs NM Joshua Colas (CON) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (17 Points): IM Georgi Orlov (SEA) vs SM William Fisher (PHI) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article