This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $200 bonus prize ($150 going to the winner of the game, $50 to the loser), second place $75, and third place $50 (both second and third going entirely to the winner). Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
1st Place: GM Josh Friedel (SF) vs GM Varuzhan Akobian (SEA) 1-0
GM Friedel played the well calculated 50. Rh3!, preventing Black from queening due to the pair of passed pawns, allowing White to liquidate the wild game into a winning endgame.
Greg Shahade (1st place, 5 points): Well my first place ranking was useless, as this game would have won anyway. Honestly this week there were tons of exciting games, and I found it very difficult to choose. I felt that Monday's games were not so inspiring, but on Wednesday there were about six or seven that were good candidates. I ended up choosing this one because of the following reasons:
1. The strength of the players
2. It was a long hard fight in which the spectators weren't always sure what was going to happen.
3. The result of the match hinged on this game
4. There were some nice tricks (allowing Black to Queen at the end by playing Qxd3 followed by Rh3)
Arun Sharma (1st place, 5 points): Very interesting and entertaining game. A long maneuvering phase which turned into a tactical phase once the position opened up and then effectively ended when, with both players in severe time pressure, Friedel found a final tactic to simplify into a won ending which he converted with excellent technique. Likely both sides had some improvements in the middlegame, but on the whole the game seemed to be of quite high quality, especially taking into account the clock situation. Add to that the drama of it, with the match outcome hanging in the balance late with all three results seeming possible, this game seemed like a very worthy winner.
Jeff Ashton (3rd place, 3 points): Ok, nice game, and both sides showed inspiring play. The game is very interesting. Tough game. Ok, I'm honestly writing a lot of filler for this game, and again perhaps a simple "both sides played hard" would be better than what I have to say. Overall I feel that it might be a criminal offense not to rank this in my top three. But to be honest, I'll probably forget about this game within a few hours. I just can't really find a game I thought was more third place worthy, although I considered Brooks vs Rodriguez.
Michael Aigner (3rd place, 3 points): I should start off by commenting on how difficult this week proved to be. My spreadsheet ended up with TEN (!) games that scored equal or better than my first place game last week. Yes, Week 4 saw lots of exciting chess, and the League should be proud of that! On the other hand, I struggled with putting together the rankings of my top five games.
This board one game was fun to watch, and there's no doubt how critical the result was to San Francisco's victory. Bonus points to Friedel for his novel opening concept to ignore the advancing Black's a-pawn. As a result, White dominated the Kingside, an advantage that eventually won the game.
I thought Black solved his problems by evacuating his King to b8 and then controlling the f5 square. Yet when the Kingside opened up, it was White's monarch in some trouble. I know I would have lacked the intestinal fortitude to open the f-file and entire Kingside with 41. Nxf7.
I need deeper analysis to confirm whether White's play was sound. Primarily for this reason, I ranked the game third and not higher.
Jim Dean (4th place, 2 points): This was a nice, hard fought game by both sides. It didn't appeal to me as much as a few of the other games this week, but I have nothing negative to say about it, and feel it is GOTW worthy. I have to say I am surprised to see that Hungaski vs Shmelov didn't get much love from my fellow judges. I felt it was a really well played game by Hungaski, even if some might say it lacked excitement.
Total Score of Friedel vs Akobian: 18 points
2nd Place: FM Ron Simpson (CAR) vs GM Boris Gulko (NJ) 1-0
FM Simpson finished off a strong effort with 34. Qg5!, tactically forcing the win of Black's Queen, ending his tough league streak by knocking off one of the most successful players in league history.
Greg Shahade (2nd place, 4 points): With so many games being close in value this week, I ended up just going with this one because Simpson completely outplayed Gulko for most of the game. Admittedly Gulko made a huge mistake by playing 32... exf5, and something like Re8 would have led to a double-edged game. I did think the result of this game hinged on some very sudden tactics that weren't especially difficult to see. However the fact that Carolina drew the match because of this win, and because it was an upset of a few hundred points, led me to rank it second.
Jeff Ashton (2nd place, 4 points): See my notes for Gulko vs Bartell if you want to read my thoughts about underdogs beating the great ones, but yes, I might rank upsets highly, but at least I'm consistent!
Like other upsets that I rank highly (Gulko vs Bartell) the winning side played well, and the game was interesting.
When I first saw this game, I figured there was a good chance I would rank it from third to fifth place. But then I realized that maybe subconsciously I didn't want to offend the chess purists for ranking an upset so high more than once, against the same player, in such a short time frame. I looked at the game a few times to make sure I'm not making any horrible mistake for voting it so highly, since obviously I don't want the "who cares if it's an upset" people to lose too much sleep, and I realized that White's play was overall pretty accurate. Perhaps Gulko could have defended better, but nonetheless, it gets a high vote from me.
And a few other points to quickly mention:
1. There is a larger rating difference (although the winning side had White, not Black).
2. How often does a player 2200-2300 win against a 2600 player playing the Kan? I'm pretty sure that this is the first time in history that it has happened. I'm exaggerating so don't break your mouse while rushing to open Mega Database, it probably has happened once or twice before.
Jim Dean (2nd place, 4 points): It is difficult to not give a lot of credit to a win where an FM smashes a GM in a nice attack. It's true that Gulko made a pretty large blunder near the end, but White was doing well anyway, and Simpson clearly played lots of good moves throughout.
Arun Sharma (NR, 0 points): Just like Jeff Ashton, whether you agree with me or not in my choice to not rank this game, I definitely have shown that I'm consistent as this is the third big upset this season (the first two being Gulko vs Bartell and Shulman vs Felecan) where I gave the game in question a much lower ranking than the general consensus. As I've said before, I do agree that the intrigue factor (for instance a big upset) should be a consideration in GOTW rankings, but in my opinion, a minor one at most. Of course that's my personal viewpoint, and I think it's obvious that several of the other judges don't quite agree with me; I just really feel that the actual game itself should be by far the most important factor. This game in particular, Simpson played well, but Black really self-destructed late with two consecutive blunders (as Michael points out), and the ending combination was really not anything surprising or spectacular. In a week with so many other interesting games, I simply feel there were other games which were objectively quite a bit better choices and was not prepared to put this game higher than them due to the upset factor.
Michael Aigner (NR, 0 points): Simpson took down one of the USCL's top performers in a shocking upset. While I did consider this game, I chose not to rank it in my top five because Black collapsed from a playable position with a pair of back-to-back blunders 32... exf5? and 33... h5?? Black essentially dropped his Queen to an elementary two-mover! White's winning combination of 34. Qg5 (tempo), 35. Qxh5+ (tempo), and 36. Nh6+ (discovered check winning the queen) was not worthy of second place in GOTW.
I believe my fellow judges once again placed more value on "shock and awe" by rewarding a major upset and a short yet decisive tactic. Frankly, there were *plenty* of other games to choose from this week that didn't end in hari-kari.
Total Score of Simpson vs Gulko: 12 points
3rd Place: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Sam Shankland (NE) 1-0
GM Christiansen finished off his well played endgame with 29. Ra1! at which point the mating threat in tandem with the devastating pin on the seventh rank compelled immediate resignation.
Jeff Ashton (1st place, 5 points): It is entertaining to see aggressive, attacking games played by strong players that end in such few moves... what else can I say. Maybe enjoying "miniatures" is a guilty pleasure for many, but it is great GOTW material nonetheless.
Regarding Kiewra vs Adamson:
Mainly because I'm a UTD Alumnus, it brings me some dissatisfaction to write this, but I must. And after reading what Bryan Smith said last season, I now feel that people should be less critical of chess players, especially when the player is not being paid great money to compete. With that being said as a GOTW judge, I just can't let some things go by without sharing my opinion.
I doubt Robby Adamson has faced this opening too many times, but he handled it well. Black seemed to be better for most of the game. If I ever find myself preparing for this a3-d4-c3 opening, I will think of this game.
I just really hate it when players play the way White did in a team event. Sure, maybe White's opening doesn't lose by force, but you risk looking like a huge schmuck in front of your teammates and fans when you are worse most of the game, and equal at best, after playing such an opening.
Who cares how you look? Well, it's a team event, so you have to factor in some "non-chess" things like team morale. I'm sure the Dallas players weren't thinking: "All right, we're looking great on Board Three since Robby foolishly played the Sicilian and walked into Keaton's a3-d4-c3 prep, so we can relax a little. Loving our chances here, Playoffs here we come!"
Having some experience in team play, I know I would be irritated looking to my left or right and seeing my teammate play this type of opening with the White pieces against such a strong opponent (unless the teammate is Nakamura).
Such play might increase your chances of losing the match prematurely. What if your choice of opening causes your teammates to be forfeited? If they verbally (or physically) assault you during a game for playing a move that makes them angry, some TDs might feel compelled to forfeit the players for interference or discussion of the game in progress, etc. You might think that this is unlikely. But the assault (most likely verbal), is highly probable. A strict TD can easily forfeit your whole team! Best case scenario is your team gets a severe warning, and it is likely your team gets a bad reputation!
But okay, I can't just criticize without looking at some positives.
This rarely played opening choice is perfect for special situations. It's a great "I'm playing on the last board in the World Open in the last round instead of withdrawing, fighting not to be last place" type of opening. I can imagine the player thinking: "If I win this game, I get to share some laughs with my buddies while we share some mozzarella sticks at TGI Fridays. Even if it's a bad game, some of the high rated players might stop and look at the cool opening on their way to the bathroom."
But enough of the ranting. Keaton Kiewra is a very gifted player and a highly intelligent person, and I'm sure that he was aware that his choice is risky. I am more upset about the general idea of playing this way in team events, and I have nothing personally against the players who choose to do this (I had similar comments about David Pruess losing a very interesting/dangerous game last season using a rare gambit, and I admire David Pruess as well).
I know that hindsight is 20/20, and it's easy for me to sit on the sideline and criticize after the players lose and then say nothing when they win (nothing comes to mind off hand). I just feel that it's a poor choice that is too often repeated in team chess, often frequented by inconsistent players.
Certain players (like Nakamura) can get away with playing unorthodox openings, because they will probably win, and at least their move won't destroy team morale (or risk team forfeit). But most players should just play sound openings, or only play "dangerous" openings when they actually pose danger to the opponent, thus increasing the team's chance of having short-term and long-term success.
I really don't think this game will place in the top five, but somewhere inside of me (buried very deep, since I didn't vote for the game), I want this game to win first place to ensure that my opinion can be shared and discussed by fans of team chess.
Jim Dean (3rd place, 3 points): This is the type of game I often think of when GM Christiansen comes to mind. He manages to find creative and powerful moves regularly when on the attack and sometimes makes it look easy.
Greg Shahade (4th place, 2 points): A nice smooth game by Christiansen. He sacked a Pawn in the opening but almost immediately got convincing compensation. Shankland was forced to go into a very unpleasant endgame, which Christiansen won with relative ease. Maybe Shankland could have defended better but defending such a position is no picnic.
Michael Aigner (5th place, 1 point): I don't know if these guys were playing chess or bughouse, but it doesn't really matter. LarryC is a heckuva fighter, and he never quits coming after you. There's a lesson to be learned here. 'nuff said.
My top two picks for Week 4 were a technical win by Renier Gonzalez against Ben Finegold (watch out for 21. Rd1), and Matikozyan's defensive gem versus Felecan (Black wins on the f-file after 29... f5). Unfortunately, my fellow judges got distracted by the large selection of other exciting games this week.
Arun Sharma (NR, 0 points): I did consider ranking this game since it seemed like Christiansen played very well, especially in the endgame, winning in such a seemingly effortless fashion. However, there were also a few things about the game which troubled me. The opening part seemed somewhat shaky as I have a hard time believing 11. Ng5 is objectively good even though it really set some tough challenges for Black. The strategy certainly paid off as Shankland erred soon with 12... Nxd4? (Black appears to be better after 12... Bc5) allowing White to effortlessly liquidate into a fantastic endgame. Again Christiansen played very well in that stage of the game, very clean technique without ever allowing any counterplay, but I also felt that Black should have put up sterner resistance there even though I agree it's very difficult to have to defend such a depressing position.
Total Score of Christiansen vs Shankland: 11 points
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
9 points (Arun 4, Michael 4, Jeff 1): IM Florin Felecan (CHC) vs IM Andranik Matikozyan (LA) 0-1
8 points (Jim 5, Arun 3): IM Robert Hungaski (NE) vs SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) 1-0
6 points (Michael 5, Arun 1): GM Renier Gonzalez (MIA) vs GM Ben Finegold (STL) 1-0
5 points (Greg 3, Michael 2): WFM Tatev Abrahamyan (LA) vs IM Angelo Young (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Arun 2, Jim 1): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Dmitry Schneider (MAN) 1-0
2 points (Jeff 2): IM Michael Brooks (STL) vs NM Eric Rodriguez (MIA) 1-0
1 points (Greg 1): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0