Fédération québécoise des échecs
Fédération québécoise des échecs
Fédération québécoise des échecs

Bob armstrong - day 3

Blog # 3 - Day 2/ Rds. 2 & 3 – Sunday, July 20


  1. This blog is duplicate posted: a) on the FQE Canadian Open website ("Follow the tournament"); b) on the CMA Chesstalk. But the FQE website has the great advantage that it includes a game-viewer. So my Rd. 2 game, and that of Mario’s, that are in the text, can be immediately played over. The URL for the blog there is: http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/suivre_en.html .
  2. The advantage of the Chesstalk site, is that there is capacity for anyone to comment and discuss any CO matters.
  3. This blog # 3 was completely prepared early this morning (Monday), except for needing the U 2000 pairings. The delay has occurred because the standings were not available before 3:00 PM, my self-imposed deadline to post this blog # 3.

Starting the Day Off Right – The Wee Hours of the Morning

  After midnight Sunday morning, there was my roomie, Mario Moran-Venegas (picture in Blog # 1), checking various chess stuff on his laptop, and me wondering when I might get Blog # 2 out, once I finished it. I still needed to finish analyzing my game, to put it in. Still no U 2000 Rd. 1 results posted. So Mario hit the sack about 12:45 AM, and I followed about ½ hr. later.


I managed to get my normal 5 hrs. sleep (up at 6:15 AM). And then went back to finishing analysis of my Rd. 1 game (didn’t get it done Saturday night). The blog was then totally complete and ready to go….except for the U 2000 section results – but at 8:00 AM, still no U 2000 Rd. 1 results posted; so Mario and I went for a quick breakfast at our now favourite 24/7 Timmies.
When we came back to play in Rd. 2, the pairings of the section were done close to 11:00 AM for Rd. 1. I chatted again with my friends Michael Sharpe from my hometown, Sarnia, and Paul Leblanc, CFC Rating Auditor (picture in Blog # 2). He also handles the investments for CFC through its Canadian Chess Foundation. So we talked a bit about the merits of the Foundation finally going independent of CFC – a discussion CFC should likely re-visit now, with the funds growing.
Fortunately the pairings hard copy had the points scored in Rd. 1. But at that time I had no time any longer to work on Blog # 2, since I was now going to play in Rd. 2.


I finished my game a bit after 3:00 PM. Now I had time to get back to Blog # 2 and finally finish it. So I went to get the favourites’ scores from the hard copy. Now I no longer needed the Rd. 1 results from the internet. So I managed to send off my blog, and the ChessBase game separately, to Roman for posting. And then I posted the blog on Chesstalk.
While I was doing this, Mario (who lost), and Omar Shah (lodged with Larry Bevand of Chess ‘n Math – Omar had managed the Toronto Strategy Games store in Toronto a while ago – picture in Blog # 2), who won, joined me in the hotel room. They went to get some late lunch and brought me back a delicious burger and fries (I’m a fast food junkie). Mario worked on his laptop, and Omar sacked out ‘til Rd. 3 @ 6:00 PM.
I then started work on this Blog # 3.

My Games

(Because new readers come to the blog from time to time, I want them to have the following information, and so I am repeating the template of it each day – I’d ask the daily readers of the blog to tolerate the repetition)

As I’ve said in prior year’s blogs, I like to think “class” games, like those in the U 2000 section, down in the middle of the bowels of the tournament, have some interest. I believe in some ways they are more educational to class players than GM games, if properly annotated. They are understandable, because we all think similarly – GM moves are many times incomprehensible to us class players.
For years now, I’ve used a chess website, Chess5 (http://www.chess5.com ), as my own personal chess games blog and back up storage site – I have gotten to know the owner/administrator Eydun, quite well over the years. I introduced Canada to his website, after I first saw it. Canada is now one of the main posters to this on-line databank. I post all my games, using what I call my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)”, hoping that this makes them even more helpful to viewers. In prior years, this is where I have posted my Open games for those interested to play over. Click on the heading link “public games”, and you get a list of games posted this month so far, including mine from this Open.
But this year I am adding another feature since I am blogging on a website this time. I will be including my games, annotated, right in this blog. I had discussed with Roman the possibility of a game viewer capacity, so that viewers of the blog could immediately play over my game on the screen. If I can manage to get a copy of one of the top board games in our section, I will be trying to include it in this blog as well. Roman advised that he would be able to set up game-viewer capacity.
My games may not be dramatic, but I am told I am a somewhat messy and adventurous player (I lose a lot!), and that my games, win or lose, are often interesting to play over (some friends say, so they’ll learn how not to play chess…sigh). However in this tournament so far, I must admit I have played quite conservatively, even passively. I hope this changes! 
But I hope they will be worth a look.

The U 2000 Group (88 players), Favourites & Today’s Rd. 2

Our section started with 13 top players who I termed the “favourites”. They are the 1900’s. Here are their results for Rd. 2:

  1. Shah, Omar – 1999 – ON – won – 1 ½ pts.
  2. Gauthiers, Dennis – 1999 – QC – won – 1 ½ pts.
  3. Villeneuve, Robert – 1993 – QC – drew – 1 ½ pts.
  4. Have, Didier – 1992 – QC – won – 2 pts.
  5. Liard, Serge – 1984 – QC – won – 2 pts.
  6. Weston, Paul – 1963 – QC – won – 1 ½ pts.
  7. Germain, Michel – 1947 – QC – won – 2 pts.
  8. Vettese, Nicholas – 1943 – ON – bye – ½ pt.
  9. Pomerantz, Daniel – 1937 – QC – won (forfeit) – 2 pts.
  10. Ingram, Richard – 1929 – QC – won – 2 pts.
  11. Desjardins, Michel – 1925 – QC – lost – 0 pts.
  12. Chang, Michael – 1912 – QC – drew – 1 ½ pts.
  13. Sarra-Bournet, Marc – 1911 – QC – won – 2 pts.

Note: there may well now be other players with 2 pts. who were not on the initial favourites list. I will bring them into the leaders’ list when reporting on Rd. 3. And some of the favourites will now drop out of the list.

My Round 2 Game

The time control is 40/90 min. + SD/30 min, with a 30 sec increment from move 1.
In Rd. 2, I was paired down (discussed in the last blog), and played Black again, against Edward Selling (1782 according to the Results website initial ranking; his USCF rating; 1663 – according to the last FQE Pre-registrations; from New York, USA). I lost, though the game was close; but I had a cramped position all game, and it was just a matter of time before his cumulative advantage allowed him to win a P. But in the end I had to sac when he queened his P, and so he was up a B, and my few pawns left were vulnerable – time to resign. The game did go 54 moves.
Here is the game, annotated with my own annotation method, called the Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS), using Fritz and my own comments:

Selling, Edward (1663) - Armstrong, Robert J. (1645) [A48]

[pgn][Event "Canadian Open (U 2000)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.07.20"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Selling, Edward"]
[Black "Armstrong, Robert J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A48"]
[WhiteElo "1663"]
[BlackElo "1645"]
[Annotator "Armstrong, Robert"]
[PlyCount "107"]
[EventDate "2014.07.20"]
[EventType "swiss"]

1. d4 $14 {0.35} g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. e3 $6 $11 (3. e4 c5 {(depth 24)} 4. d5 d6 $14
) 3... Nf6 4. Bd3 O-O 5. Nbd2 d6 6. b3 $6 $15 (6. O-O Nc6 7. e4 e5 8. d5 Nb4
$11) 6... Nc6 7. Bb2 Bg4 $6 $11 (7... Nb4 8. O-O Nxd3 9. cxd3 Nd5 $15) 8. h3
Bd7 9. O-O Nb4 10. Be2 c5 11. a3 Nc6 12. c4 cxd4 13. exd4 Nh5 14. Rb1 $6 $15 (
14. Ne4 Nf4 15. Qd2 Bh6 $11) 14... Nf4 15. d5 Ne5 16. Nxe5 dxe5 17. Nf3 $6 $17
{I get a "clear" advantage} (17. Ne4 e6 18. Re1 exd5 19. cxd5 f5 $15) 17... Qc7
$2 $11 {I lose my advantage} (17... e6 18. d6 e4 $17) 18. Re1 f5 $2 $16 {Ed
gets a "clear" advantage} (18... e4 19. Bxg7 exf3 20. Bxf3 Kxg7 $11) 19. Bf1 e4
20. Bxg7 Kxg7 21. Qd4+ Kg8 22. Ne5 Nh5 $6 $18 {Ed gets a "winning" advantage} (
22... b6 23. f3 Rad8 $16) 23. Nxd7 $6 $16 (23. c5 Nf6 24. Rbc1 Rad8 $18) 23...
Qxd7 24. c5 Rfd8 25. Bc4 Ng7 $6 $18 (25... b5 26. c6 Qd6 27. Bxb5 Nf4 $16 (
27... e6 $6 $18 {2.24})) 26. Qe5 $2 $18 {1.71} (26. c6 Qd6 27. cxb7 Rab8 28.
Qxa7 Kf8 $18 {3.05}) 26... Kh8 27. a4 $6 $16 (27. b4 a5 28. b5 b6 $18) 27...
Rac8 28. b4 (28. f3 Rxc5 29. fxe4 Rc7 $16) 28... Qc7 (28... a5 29. Qd4 Qxa4 $16
) 29. Qb2 Qf4 $6 $18 (29... a5 30. Rec1 axb4 31. Ba2 Qa5 $16) 30. Re3 $6 $16 (
30. Qc3 Qc7 31. a5 b6 $18) 30... h6 31. g3 Qg5 $6 $18 (31... Qc7 32. g4 b6 $16)
32. Qe5 $6 $16 (32. a5 Rf8 33. Kg2 Qf6 $18) 32... Kh7 $6 $18 (32... a5 33. Ba2
axb4 34. Rxb4 Rxc5 35. Rxb7 f4 $16) 33. h4 Qf6 34. Qxf6 exf6 35. a5 Nh5 36. Rd1
Rc7 $2 $18 {4.75} (36... Rb8 37. d6 a6 $18 {3.10}) 37. d6 Rg7 38. Kh2 g5 $2 $18
{6.01} (38... a6 39. Bd5 Rh8 $18 {5.03}) 39. Be6 f4 40. Bf5+ $2 $18 {4.74} (40.
Rxe4 fxg3+ 41. fxg3 Kg6 $18 {7.72}) 40... Kh8 $2 $18 {5.90} (40... Kg8 41. gxf4
Nxf4 42. a6 $1 (42. Rxe4 $2 a6 43. d7 Kf8 $18 {5.03}) 42... Nd3 $18 {8.25}) 41.
Rxe4 {Ed goes up a P} fxg3+ 42. fxg3 Rgg8 43. Re7 Ng7 44. Bg6 Rb8 $2 $18 {14.13
} (44... gxh4 $2 45. gxh4 Rgf8 $18 {20.47}) (44... Rgf8 45. Rxb7 Ra8 $18 {12.05
}) 45. Rde1 $2 $18 {6.64} (45. a6 bxa6 46. d7 Rgd8 $18 {18.52}) 45... Rgf8 $2
$18 {10.04} (45... gxh4 46. gxh4 f5 $18 {8.08}) 46. Rc7 $2 $18 {8.57 Ed misses
the computer mating line} (46. a6 b6 47. c6 gxh4 48. d7 hxg3+ 49. Kxg3 h5 $18 {
Mate in 26 moves}) 46... gxh4 47. gxh4 Rfc8 48. Rxc8+ Rxc8 49. Re7 $2 $18 {
again missing the computer mating line} (49. a6 $1 b6 50. c6 $1 Rxc6 51. d7 Ne6
52. Rxe6 Rxe6 53. d8=Q+ Kg7 $18 {mate in 9 moves}) 49... Rb8 $2 $18 {23.55} (
49... Rd8 50. Rxb7 Ne6 $18 {11.82}) 50. b5 $2 $18 {11.16 missing the computer
mating line} (50. a6 $1 Kg8 51. axb7 Ne6 52. c6 $1 Rf8 $18 {mate in 7 moves})
50... Kg8 $4 $18 {leads to mate} (50... Rd8 51. d7 $18 {30.72 (verified depth
22 - With best play this is still clearly a mate. The problem is the "horizon
effect" limitation on computers. Given that human beings live in "time", and
need to practically have results by outside-determined deadlines, the computer
often cannot get to the right result in the time allotted. It cannot "see" far
enough, fast enough. So at the depth I've allowed it to go, Fritz thinks there
is not a mate here! Clearly wrong. But it is not Fritz' fault. The problem is
my inability to give it infinity to reach the right answer! So we must, based
on human intuition, reject the current answer of the computer as just wrong.]})
51. d7 (51. c6 bxc6 52. bxc6 $18 {mate in 22 moves}) 51... f5 $18 {mate in 20
moves} (51... Kf8 52. Re2 a6 $18 {mate in 21 moves}) 52. Re8+ $2 $18 {19.44
though obviously winning, it is not the "best" move to keep the mating line.} (
52. c6 bxc6 53. bxc6 Rb2+ 54. Kg3 $18 {mate in 11 moves}) 52... Nxe8 53.
dxe8=Q+ Rxe8 54. Bxe8 $18 {18.83 Ed has now raised his material advantage from
a P to a B; and my P's are vulnerable. Time to admit the inevitable, from back
some time ago! But, in chess players, hope of some unexpected salvation springs eternal! :)} 1-0[/pgn]

The Evening

Before Rd. 3 (today is the double-round day), Mario and I went to get a coffee at our Timmies. Then the round was supposed to start at 6:00 PM. And it did for all but our U 2000 section (Section C – the middle one). It seems there was a technological problem with the computer refusing to pair, along with some other problems. The result – they had to do the pairings manually. Our section was 1 ½ hrs. late! 

So I chatted with my friend Mike Sharpe, from my hometown of Sarnia, Brendon Lee whom I’d played in a prior Canadian Open, and some others. Hugh Brodie came to look in on the tournament and we chatted – he was unable to play this year due to some health recovery issues. Victoria Jung-Doknjas of BC and I then chatted a bit – she was the recent “Head of Delegation” for Canada for the North American Youth Chess Championships, held in USA. She and I met initially at the 2011 CYCC in Richmond Hill, Ontario (north of Toronto). She has 3 children all playing in different age groups. Victor Itkine and I then chatted – I have played his son, David, a few times a while ago. Edward Selling also came up (we played in Rd. 2), and he said he’d hoped to analyze the game with me, but then I disappeared. I advised I did have some stuff to do on my blog, and had to leave quickly to get at it. We talked a bit about New York and Toronto chess and chess clubs. In his area, he is finding a definite drop in interest in club over-the-board play. I advised that this was generally the case in Canada as well, except for one of my Toronto clubs, Scarborough Chess Club. We were getting 120 registrants out to our weekly swisses on Thursday. We are so successful, we had to stop taking new members and started a waiting list (who’s ever heard of this before??). The problem was we had reached maximum fire capacity for the playing hall, and couldn’t add any more players. As many say, when they hear this, “nice problem to have”.

From talking to a number of players in the section, there is some unhappiness about the way the U 2000 section has been going (and that is likely quite an understatement). As part of the section, I have to say when you are revved to play, and this kind of thing happens, your enthusiasm just drains away. It becomes very easy to just want the game to be over. I think we in the section all hope that this does not continue.

Post Rd. 3

Unfortunately, my game ended rather early (I played my worst game of the three). So I came up to the hotel room about 9:30 PM. The first thing I saw was Roman’s posting of my blog from yesterday, Blog # 2. He had put my Rd. 1 Game into the game-viewer format. It looked great, and I quickly banged out a thank you letter to him and Felix Dumont for the great support they have given me in doing my blog. Thanks guys!
I checked e-mails, a few websites, and then continued on with the preparation of this blog # 3. Mario was in a long game, and in a bit of trouble I thought (he was the second last game in the hall), and so I left my analysis of my Rd. 2 game, and went down a few times to check on his progress. On one occasion I skipped out to Timmies to get some comfort food donuts (surely I’m entitled to that after starting with 3 consecutive losses…even if diabetic!). On other occasions, I updated my U 2000 Rd. 3 results from the hard copy results mark-up sheet (to the extent I could – since they had been paired by hand, they had no current point total for the players. So I could not tell who, not among the favourites, now might be one of the leaders. I was able to get the top section leaders as well, but when I later checked it on the internet, that section’s results and standings were posted.

The Stroke of Midnight Monday Morning (and later)

At midnight, Mario was still fighting (he also is in the U 2000 section), but I decided I’d just stay in the hotel room after my last visit, and I’d get the good or bad news in due course. Mario wandered in about 12:30 AM and gave me the thumbs up sign. He was down a minor for a P (a blunder). But his opponent wrongly advanced some P’s, and left himself open to a perpetual check!
To give you more for your money, I thought I should include Mario’s game! He has just done minimal annotations. I thought it worthy, since it was a nice come-back:

Moran-Venegas, Mario - St-Cyr, Xavier [C78]

[pgn][Event "Canadian Open 2014 in Montreal"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.07.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Moran-Venegas, Mario"]
[Black "St-Cyr, Xavier"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C78"]
[Annotator "Moran-Venegas,Mario"]
[PlyCount "139"]
[EventDate "2014.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 {Avoiding The Berlin} b5 6. Bb3
h6 7. c3 Bc5 8. O-O O-O {Countless times I have played d4 here. I don't play
my openings by memory. This one I will remember for next time.} 9. h3 ({
Houdini 4 Pro w32:} 9. d4 Bb6 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. dxe5 Nxe4 12. Bd5 Nxf2 13. Rxf2
Bxf2+ 14. Kxf2 Rb8 15. Bf4 Bb7 16. Bxb7 Rxb7 17. Nd2 b4 18. Qb3 Qe7 19. Kg1
Qc5+ 20. Kh1 Rb6 21. Ne4 Qc6 22. Qc2 bxc3 23. Nxc3 Qg6 24. Qe2 Rfb8 25. b3 {
[%eval 46,22]}) 9... Bb7 10. Nbd2 d6 11. Re1 Re8 12. Nf1 Ne7 13. Ng3 Ng6 14. a4
c6 15. Nf5 d5 16. Qe2 Bb6 17. Bc2 c5 18. Rd1 d4 19. Bd2 Qd7 20. N3h4 Rac8 21.
cxd4 cxd4 22. Bb3 Kh7 23. axb5 axb5 24. Bb4 Ra8 {Up to now we have been
crossing the even-game line on both sides back and forth but staying within
one 3rd of a pawn. But this moves by black gives me clear advantage.} 25. Nxg6
fxg6 26. Nd6 Rxa1 27. Rxa1 Ra8 28. Rxa8 Bxa8 29. Qc2 Bc6 30. Nf7 Bc7 31. Qc5
Qe8 32. Qc1 Bb8 {Here it would never cross my mind to exchange black colour
bishops as I think mine is superior. But as you see it would have give me a
winning advantage!} 33. Bd2 ({Houdini 4 Pro w32:} 33. Bd6 Bxd6 34. Nxd6 Qa8 35.
Nf7 Nd7 36. Kh2 Bb7 37. Qc7 Qc8 38. Qxc8 Bxc8 39. Be6 Nc5 40. Bxc8 Nxd3 41. Kg3
Kg8 42. Be6 Kf8 43. Bd5 Ke7 44. Kf3 Kf6 45. Nd6 b4 46. Nc4 Ne1+ 47. Kg3 g5 48.
Nb6 Ke7 49. Bb3 Nd3 50. Bc2 Nxb2 51. Nd5+ Kd6 52. Nxb4 Kc5 53. Nd3+ Nxd3 54.
Bxd3 Kb4 55. Kf3 Kc3 56. Ke2 h5 57. Ba6 Kc2 58. Bc4 g4 59. hxg4 hxg4 60. Ba6
Kc3 61. Bd3 {[%eval 201,22]}) 33... Bd7 34. Bxh6 {I get the winning advantage
this way. Black cannot recapture because of mate.} Ng8 35. Bd2 Qe7 36. Qe1 Nh6
37. Ng5+ Kh8 38. Bb4 {Since the black queen was not awake I had to poke it
into action. This blunder gives black a winning advantage.} Qxg5 39. Bd2 Qe7
40. Qa1 Bc6 41. Qa5 Qc7 42. Qa3 Qd6 43. Bb4 Qd8 44. Bd2 Bd6 45. Qa2 Qa8 46. Qb1
Be8 47. Qc1 Bf7 48. Bc2 Kh7 49. Qd1 Qa2 50. Bc1 b4 51. Qd2 Bb3 52. g4 Bxc2 53.
Qxc2 b3 54. Qc6 Be7 55. Kg2 Qb1 56. Bxh6 {Here Xavier missed either Bh4 or Qb2
to maintain his two pawn advantage. After his recapture we are back in
even-game line territory.} Kxh6 57. Qe6 {I missed Qe8. If played right black
can mate in less than 30 moves. A whopping 6 pawn advantage.} Qxd3 {Yes!!! He
misses it and a draw is in the books.} 58. Qxe7 Qxe4+ 59. Kg1 g5 60. Qe6+ Kh7
61. Qxb3 d3 62. Qd1 Qe2 63. Qb1 {Yes again!! Qc2 would have started a sequence
to mate me in less than 20 moves. But on my side is Xavier's clock that since
move 50 or so has been hovering between 5 and 8 minutes.} e4 64. Qf1 Qxb2 65.
Qe1 Qe2 66. Qa5 {Triple yes!! d2 would have done me in as I have no perpetual.}
Qf3 67. Qxg5 {Uffff! Xavier has no escape from perpetuals without losing
material.} Qf6 68. Qh5+ Qh6 69. Qf5+ Qg6 70. Qf4 {Xavier proposed a draw and I accepted .} 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

So Mario pulls ahead of me – ½ vs 0! Well, at least that postpones any possibility of us getting paired together…for a while anyway, if I do ever start playing. We stayed up a while, him analyzing his earlier games (he’s been having computer problems that put him behind schedule), and me doing my Game 2. We hit the sack about 2:30 AM.


After 3 hrs. (?) sleep, I was wide awake at 5:30 AM. So I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I continued analyzing my Rd. 2 game for this blog # 3. About 7:00 AM I went to Timmies to bring back a coffee to help me welcome a new day, where a win is still a possibility!
Mario got up at 9:00 AM, and went to his laptop to see what he could do on his game, for the blog. We later went to breakfast, and there were no standings for section C when we returned, neither hard copy outside the playing hall, nor on the Results website.
So I just waited. At 2:00 PM, I found Pierre Denomme, one of the arbiters, to my knowledge, and asked about the U 2000 Standings. He seemed to say there was some problem re access to the computer in the playing hall, because the room was locked. So he could not advise at what time the standings might appear. So I just waited.
At three o’clock, I sent the blog out to Roman to post, and I posted it on Chesstalk.

The U 2000 Group (88 Players) – The Leaders After Rd. 3

Our leader group is now thinning a bit (this is the best list I could cobble together from the playing results sheets on the bulletin boards, and so may well be incomplete. I do not know about players scores further down in the original ranking. There were no published standings at the time of going to press):

1/4.  – 3 pts. – 4 players - Have, Didier (1992 – QC); Liard, Serge (1984 – QC); Michel Germaine (1947 – QC); Moore, Ronald (1751 – QC)??
5/8. – 2 ½ pts. – 4 players - Ingram, Richard (1929 – QC); Chang, Michael (1912 – QC); Sarra-Bournet, Marc (1911 – QC); Ming, Wenyang (1801 – ON – I have been told he was wrongly placed on the list? He only played in the mini-tournament??)

Once everything is back up to speed for Section C from an administrative point of view, I hopefully will be able to supply complete information.

My Round 3 Game

I played Shao Hang He (1743 – Nat.). But there was a problem here. I played Black, for the third consecutive time in the first three rounds. I don’t know of any pairing system that can achieve that! But there have been so many technical anomalies in our section that this is just indicative of a system that is not working. These were the pairings that had to be done by hand, and that is likely the reason for the mistake. Should I expect my 4th black in Rd. 4? That is not going to happen, I’m sure.
As to the game, I lost. I blundered twice, in cases I normally would have expected myself to see. In any event, for those not that familiar with the Pirc Defence, they may find some of the lines played, and not played, of interest. I’d like games I present to be of  “blog quality”, and though this game is a bit flawed, it seems to qualify to some extent. So I’m presenting it too – I have annotated it again with my CAS, using Fritz and my comments:

He,Shao Hang (1743) - Armstrong,Robert J. (1645) [E76]

[pgn][Event "Canadian Open (U 2000)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.07.20"]
[Round "3"]
[White "He, Shao Hang"]
[Black "Armstrong, Robert J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E76"]
[WhiteElo "1743"]
[BlackElo "1645"]
[Annotator "Armstrong, Robert"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2014.07.20"]
[EventType "swiss"]

1. d4 $14 {0.35} g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e4 d6 5. f4 $6 $11 {0.13 (verified
depth 21)} (5. Nf3 Na6 {(verified depth 23)} 6. Be2 c5 $14) 5... O-O 6. Nf3 Nc6
$6 $14 (6... c5 7. d5 e6 $11) 7. d5 $6 $11 (7. Be2 e5 8. dxe5 dxe5 9. Qxd8 Rxd8
10. fxe5 Ng4 11. Bg5 Rd7 12. Nd5 Ncxe5 $14) 7... Nb8 $6 $14 (7... Nb4 8. Be2 c6
$11) 8. Bd3 $6 $11 (8. Be2 $14 e5 9. fxe5 dxe5 10. Be3 (10. Nxe5 $6 Nxe4 11.
Nxe4 (11. Nxf7 $4 Qh4+ 12. g3 Nxg3 13. Bg5 Qh3 14. Bf1 Nxf1 15. Rxf1 Bg4 16.
Ne2 Nd7 $19) 11... Qh4+ 12. Nf2 Bxe5 $11) 10... Na6 $14) 8... Nbd7 9. O-O Nc5
$6 $14 (9... c6 10. Qe2 Nc5 $11) 10. Bc2 c6 11. Re1 $2 $15 {for the first time
in the game, I get the advantage.} (11. e5 Ng4 12. h3 Qb6 $1 13. Kh1 (13. hxg4
$2 Nb3+ 14. Kh1 Nxa1 15. Be4 Bxg4 $15) 13... Nh6 $14) 11... Ng4 $2 $16 {Shao
gets a "clear" advantage} (11... Qb6 12. Be3 Ng4 $15 (12... Qxb2 $6 13. Bd4 Bg4
$11)) 12. h3 Nf6 13. Be3 cxd5 14. cxd5 Nfd7 15. Rc1 a6 16. Bb1 b5 17. b4 Nb7 $4
$18 {my N is frozen for the rest of the game; Shao gets a "winning" advantage}
(17... Bxc3 18. Rxc3 Na4 19. Rc1 a5 $16) 18. Nd4 Nb6 {2.26} (18... Qe8 19. a4
bxa4 20. Nxa4 Bxd4 21. Qxd4 a5 $18 {1.92}) 19. Nc6 Qc7 20. Nxe7+ $1 {Shao goes
up a P} Qxe7 {2.20} (20... Kh8 $4 21. Nxc8 Raxc8 22. Nxb5 Qb8 $18 {4.87}) 21.
Bxb6 Qh4 22. Qf3 Bxc3 23. Qxc3 Qxf4 {material equality, but I am losing} 24.
Rf1 Qg5 25. Be3 Qe7 $2 $18 {7.62} (25... Qh4 $2 26. Qd2 Qd8 27. Bh6 Re8 $18 {
6.53}) (25... Qe5 26. Bd4 Qg5 $18 {4.46}) 26. Bh6 $18 {8.46 (verified depth 27)
. I resigned. I must lose the exchange and a P.} Qe5 27. Qc7 Qe8 28. Bd3 Qd8 29. Qc3 f6 30. Bxf8 Qxf8 31. Rxf6 Qd8 $18 {11.14} 1-0[/pgn]

The U 2000 Leaders’ Rd. 4 Pairings

I waited ‘til 3:00 PM for them to be posted, but they never surfaced. So I’ll just have to skip this, since I do not want to delay this blog any longer. Rd. 4 starts @ 6:00 PM tonight, and I need the blog out somewhat before the next round starts.

My Rd. 4 Pairing

- Same problem as above.

The Top Section Leaders After Rd. 3

First prize is $ 4,000. There are 43 registered players.
Here are the 5 Co-Leaders, with 2 pts:

1. GM Tiviakov, Sergei (2656 – Netherlands) – picture in Blog # 2.
2. GM Van Kampen, Robin (2636 – Netherlands)


Robin on right (with Can. GM Eric Hansen on left)


4. GM Moradiabadi, Elshan (2593 – Iran)
5. GM Ghaem, Maghami Ehsan (2586 – Iran)
6. IM Jeffery Xiong (2441 - USA).


Unfortunately, the website format FQE uses, does not allow for any comments, questions, etc. concerning the blog material. This is why it is being duplicate posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association national chess discussion board, Chesstalk. There this can be done. So, I'd like again to invite everyone to join into the discussion on Chesstalk by making comments, suggestions, questions, constructive criticisms :) , etc. Anything to do with the Can. Open is welcome. I will try to respond on Chesstalk if that seems appropriate.

Bob Armstrong, the crazy U 2000 Blogger :)

Copyright © 2024
Fédération québécoise des échecs
Développement et intégration / Richard Duguay
Copyright © 2024
Fédération québécoise des échecs
Copyright © 2024
Fédération québécoise des échecs
Développement et intégration
Richard Duguay
Développement et intégration
Richard Duguay