Shakmaty Bereolos - The Official Chess Site of Peter Bereolos


6/26/01 - Ward-Bereolos 2001 Chicago Open

In the final round I caught a break in the pairings. I was again right in the middle of the score group, but this time fell just over the line instead of just under it. However, my opponent, Thomas Ward, was no pushover, he had tied for the U2400 prize in last year's Chicago Open.

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bc5 Is it a new Italian Renaissance? Since the calendar turned over to 2000, I've answered 1. e4 with 1...e5 23 times, but only faced the Ruy Lopez 4 times. Quite a contrast to back in the 1900's when I faced the Spanish Inquisition nearly 70% of the time after a double king-pawn opening. I wonder if White players got discouraged by Vladimir Kramnik's Berlin Wall against Kasparov in their match. If so, perhaps we'll now see a return to the Spanish since Kasparov finally tore down the wall. 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 for a moment I thought I might see the off-beat 5. c3 for the second time in this tournament. 5....d6 6.c3 Bb6 7.Bb3 O-O an alternative is 7...Ne7 intending to preserve the dark-squared bishop after 8. Ndb2 c6 9. Nc4 Bc7 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.Nc4 c6 9...Ng6 also comes into consideration. After the text, the pawn on b6 could become a target. 10.Nxb6 axb6 11.h3 Ng6 12.Re1 h6 13.Qc2?! A move I couldn't fathom at all. The White queen was preventing the invasion of the Black knight with Nh5-f4 because of Nxe5. The queen on c2 also cuts off retreat of the light- squared bishop, so Black could also make White give up the bishop pair with Be6. Besides those drawbacks, I don't see any particular advantage to having the queen on c2. Better was 13. Be3 with a slight advantage to White. 13....Nh5 14.d4 Qf6 threatening ...Bxh3 15.Qd1 admitting his mistake, but the 2 tempi he gave me nullified his opening advantage. 15....Nhf4 16.Bxf4?! another move I didn't like, giving up the bishop pair and giving the Black queen the g6 square 16....Nxf4 17.Kh2? losing material. It's still a game after 17. dxe5, when Black is only a little more comfortable. 17....Qg6 18.Rg1 exd4 19.Nxd4 19.Qxd4 Ne2 19....Qxe4 20.Qd2 Ng6 21.g3 preventing the queen swap with ...Qf4+, but now the f3 square looks inviting. 21....Ne5 22.f4 Qxd4 23.Qg2

He's willing to give up another pawn to at least keep the queens on the board since the ending 23.Qxd4 Nf3+ 24.Kg2 Nxd4 25.cxd4 Bf5 is miserable for White 23....Qd2 no such luck! Black pockets an extra pawn and the queens come off after 24. fxe5 Qxg2+ 25. Kxg2 dxe5. [0:1]


6/18/01 - Bereolos-Rensch 2001 Chicago Open

It was back to the masses for Round 6. I had the White pieces against Daniel Rensch. Maybe something from the night before rubbed off as this time I was able to win the opposite-colored bishops position.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 d5 6.Nf3 Ne4 7.Qd3 c5 8.O-O cxd4 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Qxe4 Nc6 11.a3 I thought awhile about this, but am not entirely satisfied with the decision I reached. The question is where will Black's bishop be better, on the a7-g1 diagonal, or the a1-h8 diagonal. Since my dark-squared bishop is destined for the long diagonal, it is probably better not to drive Black's there. So the immediate 11. Rd1 as in the game Mueller- Rausch Germany 1990 was probably better. 11....Be7 12.Rd1 f5 13.Qc2 Bf6 14.e3 e5 15.exd4 exd4 15...e4 16.d5 16.Ne1 Be6 17.Nd3 Bf7 18.b4 Rc8 19.Bb2 b5!? A double-edged move. He gives me a protected passed pawn, but gains squares for his light-squared bishop and removes a potential target for my light-squared bishop. 20.c5 a5 21.Qd2 Bc4 22.Re1 Kh8 23.Bxc6 Rxc6 24.Ne5 Re6? White will have pressure on the long diagonal after 24...Bxe5 25.Rxe5 d3 26.Rae1 but White gets similar pressure in the game while Black does not have the d-pawn as an asset 25.Qxd4 Qc7 perhaps he should have tried to trade queens and play the opposite colored bishop ending immediately. 26.f4 a4 27.Rad1 Rd8 28.Qf2 the tactical shot 28.Nf7+? fails to 28....Kg8! when White's queen is hit two different ways and his knight his hanging. 28....Bxe5 finally going for the opposite colored bishops, but it may be too late. 29.Bxe5 Qe7 30.Qf3 preparing to advance the c-pawn. 30....Kg8 31.c6 Bb3 32.c7 Rc8 33.Qb7 Qf8

34.Qxc8 I calculated out the game continuation, but afterwards my opponent indicated the immediate crusher 34.Rd8 Re8 (34...Rxd8 35.cxd8=Q uncovering an attack on g7.) 35.Qxc8 34....Qxc8 35.Rd8+ Re8 36.Rxc8 Rxc8 37.Rc1 Kf7 38.Rc5 Bc4 39.Rxc4 bxc4 40.b5 He resigned since after 40. . . c3 41. b6 c2 42. Bb2 his passed pawn is stopped, but he can't stop mine. [1:0]


6/14/01 - Miezis-Bereolos 2001 Chicago Open

I almost didn't get paired up despite my 3-1 score. As in the 2nd round I was just on the wrong side of the split and ended up against the 4th seed, Latvian GM Normunds Miezis. Curiously, he had the same FIDE rating as Novikov, both of them just outside the world top 100. I also didn't get my expected White. I guess it isn't completely surprising that one would have more Blacks than Whites against GMs. If you get paired against a GM, you usually have to be doing OK in in the tournament, which probably happens more often when you've had more Whites than Blacks. However, I've gotten White less than 40% of the time against GMs, which seems a bit extreme. 1.c4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.g3 e5 Despite my crushing defeat against David Vest a few months ago, I thought I'd give this variation another shot. 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d3 d6 6.e4 Be6 7.Nge2 Qd7 8.h3 I didn't find this move in the database, which is not surprising, since it doesn't really seem to challenge Black. 8....f5 9.Nd5 Nd8 Although this is a thematic move in this variation in order to kick the d5 knight, it probably isn't best here since it surrenders d4. It was better to keep developing with 9...Nf6 with an even game. 10.exf5 gxf5 11.d4 c6 12.Ne3 Ne7 13.f4 exf4 I debated between this and 13... exd4, which might be better since the f5 pawn would not come under attack along the f- file and White would not obtain the bishop pair. I thought I could still generate counterplay along the long diagonal as in the game. 14.Nxf4 Bf7 15.Nh5 Bxh5 16.Qxh5+ Nf7 17.d5 O-O 18.O-O Ne5 19.Bd2 I thought 19. dxc6 deserved serious consideration. After the text move, White's light-squared bishop is in danger of becoming bad. 19....c5 20.g4 This may be a bit premature. The f5-pawn is a static weakness so there is no need to go after it. 20....Qe8 I thought White would have a serious initiative in the line 20...f4 21.Be4 N7g6 22.Bf5 Qc7 23.Be6+ Kh8 24.Nf5 Nxc4 but this may be playable for Black. My aim was to give up the f5-pawn for pressure along the long diagonal and White's poor light squared bishop as compensation. 21.Qxe8 Raxe8 22.gxf5 Nd3 23.Be4?! After this move Black seems to be better. He recovers his pawn and in addition to the pluses he had before, the c4 pawn is now another weakness. 23....Nxb2 24.Kh1 Bd4 I didn't consider the computer's move 24...Nc8 going right after the c4-pawn. Black looks better here, for example 25.Bc2 Nb6 26.Bb3 Rxe3 27.Bxe3 N2xc4 28.Rae1 Nxe3 29.Rxe3 c4 30.Bc2 Nxd5 25.Rae1 Kh8 I thought it was too dangerous to grab the c-pawn with 25...Bxe3 and 26.. Nxc4. White would have 2 dangerous bishops and the f-pawn would become mobile. 25...Nc8 also deserves consideration here. I was playing a la Nimzovich intending to keep the criminal passed pawn under lock and key with Ng8-f6 26.Bc2 Ng8 27.Bc1 Nf6 28.Kg2?! Trying to activate the king, but now Black can penetrate with his rook. 28. Bxb2 was equal. Unfortunately, I was running a bit short of time here and did not execute the idea accurately.

28....Rg8+ 29.Kf3 Be5?! 29...Nh5 30.Bxb2 (30.Ng4 Nxc4 ) 30....Rg3+ and the White h-pawn is in some trouble 30.Bxb2 Bxb2 31.Ng4 Nxg4?! another hasty move. This helps White's pawn structure and opens the h- file for his rook. I thought I was heading for an easy draw, but White has all the play in the ending. Instead 31...Rxe1 32.Rxe1 h5 33.Nxf6 Bxf6 34.Re6 Be5 35.Rh6+ Kg7 36.Rxh5 Bf6 and 37...Rh8 is equal since Black will have a fortress in the opposite colored bishop ending. 32.hxg4 Rxe1 33.Rxe1 Be5 34.Rh1 Rg5 I realized things weren't going quite as planned here and used most of my remaining time on this move. I think this pawn sac is the only way to go. White has threats with both f6 and Rh6 and ...Kg7 allows g5 35.f6 35.Rh6 Kg7 36.Re6 Kf7 should be OK for Black 35....h5 36.gxh5 Bxf6 37.h6 Be5 38.Rh3 Rg1 39.Bd3 Rg5 40.a4 b6 41.h7 Rg1 42.Rh5 Rg3+ 43.Ke2 Bd4 44.Rh6 Rg2+ 45.Kf3 Rf2+ 46.Kg4 Rf6 47.Rh1 Be5 48.Bf5 Rf8 49.Rh6 Rf6 50.Rh3 Rf8 51.a5 bxa5 52.Ra3

52...Rf7?! The wrong spot for the rook. The maxim is Rooks belong behind passed pawns and it's true here. After 52...Ra8 Black should be able to hold the draw because if White gets too frisky the a-pawn will start to roll. I finally saw this idea a few moves later, but by then it was too late to get back. 53.Rxa5 Rg7+ 54.Kh5 Rf7 55.Bg6 Rb7 56.Ra6 Rc7? better is 56...Re7 57.Kg5?! 57.Rc6 seems to win on the spot since the Black king can't support the blockade 57....Rxc6 58.dxc6 d5 59.cxd5 a5 60.Bb1 Kg7 61.Kg5 57....Rb7 58.Kf5 Not 58.Rc6?! Rb8! and 59...Ra8 reaching the type of position discussed in the note to Blacks 52nd move 58...Kg7 59.Rc6 Rb2?? Losing immediately. There was much debate among the spectating GMs in the post mortem about the line 59...Rb8 60.Rc7+ Kh6 61.Rxa7 Rf8+ 62.Bf7 Kxh7 63.Ke6 Miezis thought he could arrange an exchange sacrifice on d6 or e5, but others were of the opinion that Black could still hold the draw here. 60.Rc7+ Kh6 61.h8=R+ I think the rook was closer than the queen. 61....Bxh8 62.Rh7# [1:0]


6/12/01 - Elezaj-Bereolos 2001 Chicago Open

In the 4th round I played Esao Elezaj from Nashville. Although he has been a fairly regular participant in Tennessee tournaments, we had never played before. I was a bit surprised that I didn't get paired up as I had in past years with a 2-1 score, but took it as a challenge that if I could win then I would probably get the White pieces against a GM in the 5th round.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.c3 A bit unusual. I was expecting the sharper 5. d4 5....Nxe4 6.d4 d5 A thematic move in such positions. Also possible is 6... exd4 7. cxd4 d5. I like the text move a bit better since the exchange of the e5 pawn for the c3 pawn leaves the Black king a little looser in the center and the Black pawn on c4 a bit more exposed on the open c-file. Plus Black would lose some central influence. However, White could have tried for this variation by the move order 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. 0-0 Nxe4 7. cxd4 d5. Still, things should still be about equal in either line. 7.dc dc 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Ng5 Nxg5 10.Bxg5+ f6 11.Be3 Be6 12.Na3 I thought the knight would be more flexible on d2. 12....Ke7 13.f4 a6 14.fe Nxe5 15.Rf4 Rhd8 16.Bd4 Nc6 17.Be3 g5!?

Based on a miscalculation, but maybe not so bad. Of course, 17...Ne5 repeating the position is equal. Black could also try something like 17...Rd3 ultimately looking to play an endgame with a healthy 3 vs. 2 kingside majority vs. White's crippled 4 vs. 3 on the queenside. 18.Re4 h6 I only now noticed 18...Kf7? 19.Bxg5 fg 20.Rf1+ Ke7 21.Rfe1 with advantage to White 19.Re1 Kf7 20.Rxe6? The other way to sacrifice the exchange 20.Bxg5 hg 21.Rxe6 Ne5 22.R6xe5 fe 23.Nxc4 gives White more compensation, but I still prefer Black because of White's poor queenside pawn structure 20....Kxe6 21.Bxg5+ Ne5 A bit hasty is 21...Kd5 22.Rd1+ Kxc5? 23.Be3+ 22.Bxh6 Kd5 Now the King also joins the fight. With the poorly placed knight on a3, I think White is lost here. 23.Be3 Nd3 24.Rf1 f5 25.Bd4 25.Rxf5+ Ke4 25....f4 26.b3 cb 27.ab Re8 28.Nc2 Re2 29.Rd1 Ke4 30.Nb4 Nxb4 31.cb Rd8 32.Kf1 Re3 He resigned since 33. Bxe3 Rxd1+ 34. Ke2 Rh1 is hopeless. [0:1]


6/8/01 - Bereolos-Ashton 2001 Chicago Open

I had the White pieces against Jeffrey Ashton in the third round. I really got nothing out of the opening, but he lost the thread in the middle game. 1. d4 d6 2. e4?! OK, this isn't a bad move, but after the train wreck in the opening in the previous round I should have stuck with something I was more familiar with, especially since my reasoning was faulty. I wanted to try the line that had given me trouble in a few games last summer with Black (for example vs. Kudrin). However, I forgot about my game with Wally Jordan, where I equalized with a quick ...e5 2...Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. Qd2 b5 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. Nf3 e5 Now the memory of the Jordan game finally came back and I was kicking myself for bascially wasting the advantage of the White pieces. 8. h3 Bb7 9. a3 Passive, but I was concerned about the eventual plan of ...exd4, ...b4, and ...c5 when my e-pawn would be unsecure. 9...Bg7 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. O-O O-O Black has at least equalized and may even be a bit better. The bishop on b7 looks awkward, but Black has reasonable hope for an eventual ...c5. The d3 bishop, on the other hand is a glorified pawn. 12. Nh2 Qe7 13. Ng4 Nxg4 14. hxg4 Nc5 15. b4 This loosens the queenside, but I was trying to play against the b7 bishop 15...Ne6 16. Ne2 Rfd8 17. f3 c5 Up to here he had played a wonderful game, but I think this move is premature overlooking my reply. Preparation with 17...a6 or 17...Rac8 is more accurate 18. bxc5 Bc6 18...Nxc5 19.Qb4 forks c5 and b5 when White should be better, but 18...a6 keeping the c-file open looks better to me 19. Qa5 Qc7 This seems to be drifting a bit. Again 19...a6 is about equal. Now, White gets some time to improve his pieces. 20. Qxc7 Nxc7 21. Rfd1 a5 22. Rab1 Rab8 23. Kf1 Bf8 24. Bg5 Re8 25. Bd2 Ra8 26. c4 Red8?! White's advantage starts to become large after this move. 26...bxc4 27.Bxc4 Bxc5 28. Rdc1 Bxa3 29.Bxf7+ Kxf7 30.Rxc6 should also be to White's advantage, but perhaps there he could generate some counterplay with the passed a-pawn 27. Bc3 bxc4 28. Bxc4 Rxd1+ 29. Rxd1 Bxc5 30. Bxe5 Ne6? ends the game at once, but he really didn't have any compensation for the pawn at this point 31. Bxe6 fxe6 32. Rc1 1-0


6/3/01 - Novikov-Bereolos 2001 Chicago Open

My rating wasn't high enough to avoid getting paired up in round 2, but only by a few points. I ended up on Board 2 against GM Igor Novikov. I've been trying for five years to make it to the demo boards at the Chicago Open and that was about my only accomplishment in this game, which was basically over straight out of the opening.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Bg5 Na6!?

A move I first tried in this position against Tom Rowan in the 1997 Knoxville City Championship. Like many of the Na6 lines of the Kings Indian, the idea is to play e5 and pressure the d4 square which has been slightly weakened by the White bishop going to g5 instead of the usual e3. 7.Qd2 e5 8.Nge2 I couldn't find any other examples of this move, so it may be a novelty. White stays flexible, but it shouldn't trouble Black too much as the White kingside is now underdeveloped. Rowan tried 8. dxe5 which gives Black no problems at all. 8. d5 would lead to play similar to my game with David Burris in the 2000 Knoxville City Championship. 8....c6 8... h6 deserves attention. 9.O-O-O Qa5 The start of an ill conceived plan of queenside expansion. Better is 9...Qe8 with a normal game. 10.Kb1 Re8?! I wanted to cover e7 so the knight could move, but this turn out to be a very unfortunate square for the rook. 11.d5 cd? loses material to an elementary tactic, but White already has a comfortable position. Black's pieces are in poor positions to play the Old Benoni structure with 11...c5. 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxd5 Qd8 a)13...Qxd2 14.Nxf6+ and b)13...Bd8 14.Qxa5 Bxa5 15.Nf6+ both highlight the problems with the Re8 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.Qxd6 Qxd6 15...Be6 16.Nc3 coming to d5 looked even worse as my queen will be more passive than his. 16.Rxd6 Black can often get away with a sacrifice leading to this type of pawn structure in the Kings Indian. However, in those cases, Black usually has better development, great dark square control, and control of the d- file. I have none of those here. I could have possibly put up more resistance, but the position is basically lost at this point. Novikov shows good technique the rest of the way and gives me no chances. 16....Be6 17.Nc3 Rac8 18.Nb5 Bxc4 19.Nxa7 Rc5 20.Bxc4 Rxc4 21.Rc1 Rxc1+ 22.Kxc1 Nc5 23.Nb5 f5 24.ef gf 25.Rd5 b6 26.Nd6 Rf8 26...Rd8 27.Nxf5 27.b4 Na6 28.a3 e4 29.Rxf5 Rxf5 30.Nxf5 ef 31.gf Nc7 32.Kb2 Kf7 33.a4 Ke6 34.Ne3 b5 35.f4 ba 36.Ka3 [1:0]


6/2/01 - Bereolos-Lopes 2001 Chicago Open

In the first round I played an expert, William Lopes. This was a stronger opponent than I normally face in the first round of the Chicago Open. Most years I've been right near the break, and a couple of times was right on the break and played opponents who were playing their first tournament game. This year, my rating was a bit higher than in the past and the open section was larger, but not because of more top players. Consequently, I was seeded around the quarter mark instead of the half mark. This fact became important as the tournament proceeded.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cd ed 5.Bf4 Nf6 6.e3 O-O 7.Bd3 c5 More active than 7...c6, which leads to the Carlsbad structure. Karpov chose the text move in Game 8 against Kasparov in their 1986 match, but White emerged on top. 8.dc Kasparov opted for 8. Nf3. I intended to develop the knight on e2 to avoid the pin by . . . Bg4, although that shouldn't really cause White much worry. 8...Bxc5 9.Nge2 Nc6 10.O-O a6 Possibly to make room for the Bishop on a7 after ...d4 Na4, but since it doesn't really work like that against the game continuation, development with 10...Be6 is probably better 11.Rc1 d4 12.Ne4 Now the knight doesn't have to go to the rim 12...Be7 12...Ba7 13.Bg5 with the initiative

13.Rxc6!? Trying to unbalance the game. I wasn't especially satisfied with my position here. White has an edge in development, but it is not clear what that is going to lead to, especially with the center about to dissolve. For the exchange, White gets a pawn and Black will have to give up another one because of Qc2 with a double attack on c6 and h7. Furthermore, there will not be many open lines for the rooks to operate on. The position is probably still equal, but now it is more dynamic. 13....bc 14.Nxd4 Qb6 Further development with 14. . . Bb7 should also be considered, but not 14...c5? 15.Nc6 followed by 16.Nxe7+ and 17.Bd6. 15.Qc2 c5 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Bxh7+ Kh8 18.Be4 Bb7 19.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Nb3 I thought this was better than 20. Qxc5 Qxb2 which just exchanges off his weak pawn. 20....Rfc8 20...Rac8 may be better, now his a8 rook is a bit misplaced 21.Rb1 c4 22.Nd2 Qd5 23.Ne4 Be7 23...Be5 24.Rd1 followed by 25.Ng5 with attack 24.Rd1 Qa5 25.Bd6 Bxd6 26.Nxd6 Rc7 27.Qe4 Rf8 28.h3 c3 29.bc Qxc3 30.Rd5

30...Rc5?? The losing move. After 30... Kg8 it's still a game. White has some pressure, but Black should be OK. During the game, I was worried about 30...Qc2 when switching the major pieces to the h- file fails 31. Rh5+ Kg8 32. Qh4 Qd1+ 33. Kh2 Qxd6+, but instead White can again play 31. Nxf7+ 31.Nxf7+ Kg8 32.Ng5 Rfc8 33.Qe6+ probing for mate. The immediate 33.Rxc5 is also good 33..Kh8 34.Qg6 Kg8 34...Qc2 35.Rxc5 +- 35.Rxc5 Qxc5 36.Qh7+ Kf8 37.Ne6+ [1:0]


Yet another counter

www.000webhost.com