Journey to the National Master Title, Part 11

On July 18, 2024, my daughter Rachel and I played in the Cincinnati Chess Club's G/24 Swiss. This event only affected our USCF Quick ratings, and was a good warm up for the 4th Annual Joe Yun Memorial Tournament. I scored 2/4 and finished out of the money. Rachel lost all four of her games, but she enjoys playing chess regardless of the result, and she played casual games between rounds (in addition to checking on me and providing moral support during my games).

Rachel and I played in the 4th Annual Joe Yun Memorial Tournament, held from July 19-21, 2024. One of the weekend's highlights was introducing Rachel to International Master Calvin Blocker, who has won a record 15 Ohio Chess Championships. I first met Blocker at the 1989 Ohio Chess Congress. Blocker won the Ohio Chess Championship that year, and he was featured on the cover of the November-December 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin:

 Cover photo of November-December 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin

The magazine's photo caption is not hyperbole. I and the other spectators were in awe of Blocker's chess prowess. Rachel and I spoke to Blocker briefly right after we arrived at the tournament site, and we spent some quality time together prior to the second round:

Calvin Blocker and Rachel after the second round of the 2024 Joe Yun Memorial

Rachel and I played the two day schedule with a first round bye, so we each played two games on July 20, which was International Chess Day. My first game (second round) was a back and forth struggle versus Aaryn Rudrapati, the talented young player who beat me in the first round of the May 4, 2024 Columbus Plus Score tournament. After he blundered with 47...Kh7, I played 48.Re8:

Most tournament chess players know the value of placing a Rook on the seventh rank, but it should be noted that placing a Rook on the eighth rank can be powerful as well. Here, my opponent could have played 47...Kf8 to keep my Rook out, but once my Rook entered I had a winning attack. 

I won both of my International Chess Day games, while Rachel lost both of her games. I drew my third game (fourth round), and Rachel lost her third game. Rachel received a final round bye, while I needed a win in the final round to clinch a prize. Rachel enjoyed playing chess in the skittles room while I contested one of the last games to finish. When the dust cleared, I won, and I tied for first-third in the U2000 section. I gained 23 rating points to push my rating back up to 2004.

Unfortunately, I squandered the hard-earned gains from the Joe Yun Memorial Tournament by scoring just 2.5/4 in the August 3, 2024 Columbus Plus Score tournament. I lost 29 rating points to plummet to 1975; that is the most points I lost in one tournament since I lost 32 points in the January 2024 Cardinal Open. This is the sixth time I have played in a Columbus Plus Score event, and the third time that I have finished with 2.5 (I had 3 twice, and 2 once, which was the only time that I did not achieve a plus score). In round one, I lost to a player rated 1521, and in round three I drew with a different player rated 1521.

My rating slid down another 17 points to 1958 after I scored 3/5 in the U2100 section of the August 24-25, 2024 Indianapolis Open. This was a very frustrating tournament, because after winning my first game I obtained an equal position with Black on move four in the second round before playing sloppily and succumbing to a strong attack; then, in round three I obtained a decisive advantage by move eight only to let my opponent back in the game and then overlook a game-changing tactic. I recovered from those self-inflicted setbacks to win the last two games, but that only partially mitigated the damage to my rating. One bright spot is that after round three on Saturday August 24, I scored 6/8 in the Indianapolis Open Blitz to finish tied for first-seventh.

I scored 2.5/5 in the Open Section of the August 31-September 1, 2024 Ohio Chess Congress, losing five rating points to slip to 1953. I scored a draw and two losses versus higher rated players, and I won both games versus lower rated players. After round three on Saturday August 31, I scored 4/7 in the Ohio Chess Congress Blitz to finish tied for third-sixth.

On September 7, 2024, I scored 2.5/3 in the top section of the Columbus G/60 Swiss, tying for first-second, and gaining 25 rating points to lift my rating back to 1978. I scored 3/3 in the September 14, 2024 Columbus G/75 Swiss, earning clear first place, and gaining 23 rating points to push my to 2001, the third time this year that I broke the 2000 barrier after falling below that level. The next task is to not only maintain a 2000-plus rating--which I did in each USCF rating supplement issued from December 2009-May 2017--but to advance past the 2100 level and then eclipse 2200 for the first time. I am proud that I have had a 2000 rating at some point in every calendar year from 1995-2024, an accomplishment that I suspect is uncommon for a player who does not have a 2000 rating floor and has never been rated over 2200. While I tend to be very goal-oriented and forward-thinking, it is important to also acknowledge what I have already achieved in chess.

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 7, I recapped the 2023 Ohio Senior Open and described why this is such a special event for me. The 2024 Ohio Senior Open again featured a contest for the most interesting or unusual chess set, with the winners determined by anonymous polling of the tournament's participants.

  

Joe Bello's 1923 Margate replica set won in the Staunton set category

 Joe Bello's Sherlock Holmes set won in the Figurine set category

Richard Hayes' Chaturanga set won in the Other set category

After gaining 48 points with two first place finishes in my two previous tournaments to increase my rating to 2001, I looked forward to posting a strong Ohio Senior Open performance--but I lost in the first round to 1700 rated Dave Rutherford, the same kind of setback that I suffered in my very first game after my excellent result in the Joe Yun Memorial Tournament lifted my rating above 2000. In my previous five rated games versus Rutherford I scored four wins and one draw; this loss is also the first time this year that I lost to a player rated below 1800 who is not a kid. During most of this game the position was equal, but I could play for practical winning chances without risk. Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time trying to find a win that was not there, and by the critical point in the game I barely had two minutes remaining while my opponent had nearly 20 minutes remaining (G/75 time control with 10 second delay). My winning attempt failed, and I ended up with a pawn down position that is drawn with best play:

Unfortunately, I erred by playing 69. Kxa4?? instead of 69. Bc2, which holds the balance. Here is one possible line: Bxg6 70. Bxa4 Ke5 71. Kb4 Kd4 72. Bd1 Be4 73. Bg4 g5 74. Bh3 Kd3 75. Bg4 Bd5 76. Bf5+ Ke3 77. Kc3 Be4 78. Be6 Kf4 79. Kd2 Bf5 80. Bc4 g4 81.Ke1 Kg3 82. Be2=

However, my opponent gave me one more opportunity to hold the draw by not pushing his pawn quickly enough, and a few moves later we reached this position when I barely had one minute remaining:

Trading Bs obviously leads to a lost K+P ending, but I had to decide quickly where to put my B. I played Bf1?? to cover one of the squares in the P's path, but the correct method is to place my B behind the P on a longer diagonal: 76. Bb5 Ke3 77. Be8 Be6 78. Bh5 Kf4 79. Kd2 Bg4 80. Bf7 Kf3 81. Ke1 Bh3 82. Be8. The P cannot advance without giving me an opportunity to seize the long diagonal and sacrifice my B. Instead, after the game continuation my opponent played 76...Ke3. With my K shut out, it only took him a few more moves to use his K and B to force me to give up control of the key diagonal. I have thought a lot about this loss, and I believe that two factors proved to be critical. The first factor is that I did not know the two diagram positions "by hand." I had studied similar positions and I know enough to figure them out step by step given sufficient time, but I am not familiar enough with them to play them fluidly in contrast to, for example, a position of K+Q versus K, from which I could produce a checkmate very quickly. The second factor is that by getting into such severe time pressure I left myself vulnerable to not having enough time left to accurately calculate variations in positions that I don't know "by hand." More practice could increase the number of positions that I know "by hand," but it is also important to give myself a sufficient margin for error by not getting so low on time, particularly in a game that did not feature many critical decisions (until the end, of course!).

I bounced back to win my next three games, and then I obtained a winning position by move 14 in the fifth round versus 2029 rated Mike Sheaf before squandering my advantage and then blundering into a loss. Jordan Henderson secured first place with 4.5/5 after Mike Joelson--who started out 4/4--walked into a helpmate in their last round game. I was the fifth seeded player out of 20 participants, and I finished tied for fifth-seventh place (fifth on tiebreaks). Sheaf, a co-champion last year, finished tied with Joelson for second-third, with Joelson receiving second place honors on tiebreaks. This is the first time that I lost two games in one Ohio Senior Open, and the first time in three appearances that I did not win a trophy (I tied for the best score in the age 50-59 category, but this year the tiebreak procedure resulted in that trophy going to the oldest of the tied players--even though the player who received the trophy played in a separate U1800 side event against lower rated opposition than I faced in the Open section). My 3/5 score added up to 23 lost rating points, pushing my rating back down to 1978.

This result is very disappointing for me, but while ruminating about that disappointment I recalled an article that I wrote 11 years ago. In Only Thoughts and Actions Can be Controlled, Not Outcomes, I discussed how I processed the aftermath of a chess game during which I blundered but still won because my opponent blundered:

In a recent chess tournament, I won a game because my opponent responded to my blunder ...Nxe5 with the blunder Nxf7 instead of playing Nb5, which would have given him a winning position. Winning chess games used to make me feel very happy, while losing chess games used to make me feel very upset but those reactions are too extreme. A better, more balanced path is to prepare properly before the event, concentrate fully during the event, enjoy the entire process and not overreact to the result. All that a person can control is his own actions; outcomes and results are influenced by factors that a person cannot control: the results of other games affect who I get paired against--which means that I could face someone whose style is a good matchup or someone whose style is a difficult matchup--and my opponent's training, discipline and outlook affect the quality of his moves, so unless I play perfect moves 100% of the time I cannot control the outcome of the game. Of course, the better that I play the more influence I can exert over that outcome and that is one of the most seductive qualities of chess: the illusion that with only a little more knowledge and discipline a person can completely control his destiny (echoes of that illusion can be heard in the famous concluding words of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby). The difference between winning a game and losing a game and the difference between winning a tournament and finishing in the middle of the pack is sometimes just one move, one flickering of a neuron in someone's mind.

If I had been more well-rested and/or if I had studied more before the tournament then perhaps I would have played a different move but I have many interests and I enjoy the time/energy that I devote to those interests; I am not making excuses about that blunder or any other chess blunder, just stating the truth. At that moment under those conditions, ...Nxe5 was the best move I could find; I did not play impatiently and I thought that I had considered all of the relevant tactics. A minute or two after I played ...Nxe5, I saw the Nb5 idea; while I waited to see which move my opponent would play, I pondered the folly of basing one's emotional state on what happened next: I knew that the outcome of the game would likely be determined by his move and that if I was not careful then I could permit that outcome to affect my mood for the next several days. I vowed that, whatever happened, I would not overreact. I tried my best and ...Nxe5 is the move that I played, so there is nothing to be elated about and nothing to be upset about; winning the game after my opponent blundered did not "prove" anything about me (or about my opponent).

My opponent also did not rush and I assume that he did the best that he could under his individual circumstances. I have deliberately not given the complete move list or provided a diagram of the game position, because this particular game and these particular moves are just vibrations of a much larger cosmic string. If my opponent or I had vibrated the string a bit differently then we would have played a different melody but--regardless of the melody we created--there is nothing to cry about here. I should celebrate that I have been playing tournament chess for more than 25 years and that I am capable of playing chess at a higher level than 97% of all rated players; my young opponent should celebrate that he is already a strong player and that if he stays on his current path then he likely will become a chess master. No, it is even simpler than that: regardless of years spent or rating points obtained, the enjoyment of playing the game in the moment is the height of ecstasy; the game result is logically determined by the combined mental and psychological states of both players and there is no reason to become emotional about that logically determined outcome: if you have a succession of outcomes that you deem to be unsatisfactory then it is necessary to adjust your life pattern (sleep habits, study habits, etc.) to maximize the chance that you will enjoy better outcomes in the future.

Easy to say, hard to do but very necessary. My opponent looked distraught when he realized that he had blundered and I understand that feeling all too well. Chess is a very violent game; it may not be possible to completely eradicate the suffering one feels after a loss but I think that determined, focused concentration can result in a modified perspective.

More than a decade later, it is still difficult but necessary to embrace that modified perspective. As I noted when I began this series of articles, there are no guarantees on the Journey to the National Master Title, but I will not give up trying to achieve my goal and I will not give up chronicling my journey. I have a full slate of tournaments for the fourth quarter of 2024, so check back in January 2025 when I review my progress in the next installment in this series (Spoiler alert: I did not do well in my first two October 2024 tournaments, but I will persevere and expect to have good news to report at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024).

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 8, I listed four chess goals for 2024. Here are those goals, with notes about my progress toward each one through the first nine months of the year:

1) Gain 60 rating points per quarter. I gained three rating points in the first quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1968 to 1971; I gained 10 rating points in the second quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1971 to 1981; I lost three rating points in the third quarter of 2024, dropping my rating from 1981 to 1978.

2) Do not lose any games to players rated below 1800. I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the first quarter of 2024, I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the second quarter of 2024, and I lost three games to players rated below 1800 in the third quarter of 2024.

3) Accumulate more draws than losses. I had 15 draws and eight losses in the first quarter of 2024; I had seven draws and nine losses in the second quarter of 2024; I had four draws and seven losses in the third quarter of 2024.

4) Maintain a winning percentage of at least .750, to break my personal record of .740 set in 2014. My winning percentage through the first three quarters of 2024 is .694.

In 2024, I have scored 71 wins, 26 draws, and 24 losses in regular rated tournament games with 10 first place finishes in 30 events. I have lost seven games to players rated below 1800. My net rating gain for 2024 is seven so I need to gain 222 points to reach my goal.

Remembering Pete Rose, "The Hit King"

"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball"--Pete Rose

The best, worst, and most accurate thing that you can say about Pete Rose is that he did it his way. Peter Edward Rose--also known as "Charlie Hustle" and "The Hit King," but forever known as "Pete" to his adoring fans--passed away on Monday at the age of 83. During a 24 year career spent mainly with the Cincinnati Reds and also including time with the Philadelphia Phillies (1979-83) and Montreal Expos (1984), Rose set many MLB records, but none are more impressive or meaningful than the career hits record; Rose bashed 4256 hits, eclipsing a Ty Cobb mark that stood for over 50 years. A player averaging 200 hits per season for 20 years would not match what Rose accomplished, so it is fair to suggest that Rose--who has been "The Hit King" since 1985--will remain number one for a long time.

Other MLB records held by Rose include being the only player to play at least 500 games at five different positions (first baseman, second baseman, third baseman, right fielder, and left fielder), most seasons with 150 or more games played (17), most seasons with 100 or more games played (23), most career runs by a switch hitter (2165), most career doubles by a switch hitter (746), most consecutive seasons with at least 100 hits (23), and most seasons with at least 200 hits (10, a mark shared with Ichiro Suzuki). A popular catchphrase declares "Chicks dig the long ball," but Rose did it his way without being a home run slugger, and he achieved his goal of becoming the first $100,000 singles hitter at a time when making $100,000 a year as a baseball player was a rare feat.

Rose participated in 1972 MLB games that his team won, a record that is unlikely to ever be approached. Rose was fond of pointing out that he won more games than the total number of games played by the legendary Joe Dimaggio (1736)!

Rose holds the NL marks for most years played (24), most career runs (2165), most career doubles (746), and most career games with at least five hits (10). The Cincinnati Reds Record Book could be renamed "The Pete Rose Story," as Rose is the franchise's career leader in games (2722), plate appearances (12,344), runs (1741), hits (3358), singles (2490), doubles (601), and walks (1210). Reds' principal owner and managing partner Bob Castellini said, "Our hearts are deeply saddened by the news of Pete's passing. He was one of the fiercest competitors the game has ever seen, and every team he played for was better because of him. Pete was a Red through and through. No one loved the game more than Pete and no one loved Pete more than Reds Country. We must never forget what he accomplished."

Not only did Rose make the All-Star team 17 times, he is the only player in MLB history to be selected as an All-Star at five different positions: second baseman, left fielder, right fielder, third baseman, and first baseman. In Rose's era, the All-Star Game was not treated as an insignificant exhibition game but rather as a highly competitive battle between the National League and the American League. Perhaps no player took that spirit of competition as seriously as Rose, as exemplified by the famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) play at home plate in the 1970 MLB All-Star Game when Rose bowled over catcher Ray Fosse to score the winning run in the bottom of the 12th inning. Fosse injured his shoulder on the play and was never fully healthy again. Asked about the play years later, Rose regretted that Fosse got hurt but did not regret his action, stating that playing all out is the only way to play the game. That was the NL's eighth straight All-Star Game win and, after losing in 1971, the NL won the next 11 All-Star Games.

Rose won the 1975 World Series MVP, the 1973 NL regular season MVP, the 1963 NL Rookie of the Year award, and three NL batting titles (1968-69, 1973). He won two Gold Gloves (1969-70), and when he retired in 1986 he not only had the highest MLB career fielding percentage for a right fielder but he also had the highest NL career fielding percentage for a left fielder.

In 1978, Rose's 44 game hitting streak electrified baseball fans, and it is still the third longest such streak in MLB history. I am too young to have clear memories of the Big Red Machine's 1975-76 glory days, but I remember Rose's hitting streak being much discussed on TV and radio during the summer of 1978, and I recall the daily updates in local newspapers. 

Rose's teams went 9-5 in postseason series as he hit .321, including .370 in the 1975 World Series. Rose's teams won three World Series titles (1975-76 with his hometown Cincinnati Reds, 1980 with the Philadelphia Phillies). The 1976 Reds are the only team in MLB's two round playoff era (1969-93) to go undefeated, sweeping first the Philadelphia Phillies and then the New York Yankees. Rose was an integral member of the powerful Big Red Machine teams that reached the World Series four times (1970, 1972, 1975-76) in a seven season span.

Rose helped the Phillies win their first World Series title after they fell short in three straight NLCS losses (1976-78) prior to his 1979 arrival in Philadelphia. Hall of Fame third baseman Mike Schmidt enjoyed some of his finest moments--including winning his only World Series and capturing two of his three NL regular season MVPs (1980-81)--as Rose's Philadelphia teammate. Schmidt issued this statement after Rose's passing: "My heart goes out to his family. I was lucky that I got to play with Pete and to watch him every day. As a teammate, he boosted my confidence, he made me laugh and kept me loose. He taught me to enjoy the game, perhaps advice that I needed the most."

The negative side of Rose doing things his way involved illegal gambling, culminating in betting on baseball games while he served as the Reds' manager from 1984-89 (including a stint as MLB's last player-manager from 1984-86). Despite a mountain of evidence stacked against him, Rose adamantly denied betting on baseball until he admitted the truth in 2004. Nevertheless, he accepted a lifetime ban from MLB in 1989 with an option to seek reinstatement. It must be emphasized that the lifetime ban barred Rose from participating in MLB in any capacity but DID NOT prevent the writers from voting him into the Baseball Hall of Fame should they choose to do so after he became eligible; a 1991 ruling by the Baseball Hall of Fame board rendered Rose ineligible to be elected, taking the decision out of the hands of the baseball writers. In 2008, the Baseball Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee passed a similar rule. Both rules primarily--if not exclusively--target Rose. I analyzed this topic at length in 2015, and I concluded that it is wrong to keep Rose off of the Hall of Fame ballot:

I understand the argument that Rose's character flaws should keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I have made it clear that MLB's PED cheaters should not be inducted in the Hall of Fame because they have defiled MLB's record book. What Rose did is terrible and the way that he denied his conduct for years before begrudgingly making some admissions says a lot about Rose's character but the difference between Rose and the PED cheaters is that there is no evidence that Rose's gambling impacted the quality of his play or defiled the sport's record book. Rose should be placed on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and if he is voted in then his plaque should not only list his pertinent accomplishments but also state that in 1989 he was placed on the permanently ineligible list because he bet on baseball. Unless or until there is evidence that Rose's playing career/statistics are tainted by his gambling Rose deserves at least the opportunity to be selected as a Baseball Hall of Famer. The lifetime ban from the sport shields MLB from any damage that Rose's compulsive gambling could cause now and punishes him in a way that will hopefully deter others from making the mistakes that he did.

The argument in favor of Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy is bolstered by the fact that MLB--like most other major sports leagues--has now fully embraced and profited from sponsorship deals directly connected with promoting gambling, in marked contrast to the decades-long notion that any affiliation with wagering would taint sports. That cultural shift does not justify Rose's conduct--he broke the rule in place at that time, and that rule is still in place now--but it is hypocritical for MLB to profit from promoting gambling while taking such an unforgiving stance toward the "Hit King," and I reiterate my position that Rose should be made eligible for Hall of Fame induction.

Despite MLB's lifetime ban, Rose was selected to MLB's All-Century Team in 1999. During the on field ceremony, reporter Jim Gray--acting as if he were a candidate for a prize in investigative reporting--grilled Rose on national TV about the gambling scandal. Rose, like most of the audience, was surprised that Gray pursued that line of questioning at that moment. There is a proper time and place for everything, and that was neither the proper time or place. Rose deserved to celebrate that moment without being interrogated and humiliated.

Earlier in 1999, The Sporting News ranked Rose as the 25th greatest baseball player of all-time. His place in baseball history is secure, with or without his deserved Hall of Fame induction. Pete Rose was a flawed human--as we all are--but he set a great example on the field by playing hard and playing to win. I vividly remember the second half of his playing career, and it was a joy to watch him play. For a kid in the 1960s-1980s, it was a delight to pull a Pete Rose baseball card from a pack or to find a Pete Rose baseball card in a hobby shop. Here are three of my Pete Rose baseball cards:

The first baseball cards that I remember getting were the Kellogg's 3-D Super Stars cards. I still have both Pete Rose cards from that series that I got as a kid:

 

The captions to those cards are poignant in retrospect. 

The first card's caption declares, "The NL leader in hits, runs, and doubles last year, Pete's 11th .300 season and his eighth with 200 hits enabled the Cincy superstar to continue his ascent to Cooperstown fame."

The second card's caption describes Rose's quest to break Cobb's all-time hits record and asserts, "No one, of course, is betting against 'Charlie Hustle.'"

I met Pete Rose at the 2004 National Sports Collectors Convention, which I attended with a press credential so that I could interview basketball legends (including Dolph Schayes). What does one say as an adult upon meeting a childhood sports hero who did so much for baseball but also has been exiled from baseball for breaking the sport's cardinal rule? I walked up to Rose, shook his hand, and thanked him for all of the joy I felt watching him play. He looked me in the eye, and said, "You're welcome." Unlike Jim Gray, I did not feel the need to corner Rose and demand that he answer for his past lapses. Rose gave so much to the sport of baseball and its fans, and he suffered the pain of baseball exile until his last day on Earth.

Rest in peace, Pete--and thanks for the joyful childhood memories!

Roosevelt Open History

Martha Adams was the driving force behind both the Roosevelt Chess Club--which served inner city Dayton, Ohio--and the annual Roosevelt Open, which attracted strong players from throughout the country because the tournament had a generous guaranteed prize fund and also offered U.S. Chess Federation Grand Prix points. The U.S. Chess Federation Grand Prix has had various corporate sponsors over the years (including Church's Chicken and Novag, a company that manufactured chess computers). The Grand Prix provides cash prizes to the players who accumulate the most Grand Prix points during a calendar year; bigger prize fund tournaments have more Grand Prix points at stake. Igor Ivanov, who won the Grand Prix nine times, participated in the Roosevelt Open, as did Calvin Blocker, Dennis Gogel, Ron Burnett, and Ben Finegold. Ivanov and Finegold eventually earned the Grandmaster title, while Blocker and Burnett are both International Masters. Indiana native Gogel achieved U.S. Senior Master status and established himself as one of the Midwest's top chess players for several decades.

Adams made every player feel not just welcomed but valued. Anyone who attended the Roosevelt Open will never forget the ceremonies she conducted before the fifth round when she awarded several prizes in categories such as Youngest Player, Furthest Distance Traveled, Biggest Upset, and more. Even when her health waned, she still made her presence felt at the tournament, walking around, chatting up the players, and ensuring that everyone had a great experience.

The Roosevelt Chess Club hosted the Roosevelt Open annually at the Ellison Senior Citizens Center from 1983-2002. During that time, it became one of the biggest and most important chess tournaments not just in Dayton but in Ohio. 

The final two Roosevelt Opens were held in 2001 and 2002, both in memory of Martha Adams, who passed away on April 12, 2001 at the age of 62.

Front and back cover of the memorial program for Martha Adams

Martha Adams concluded her report about the 1988 Roosevelt Open in the January/February 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin by writing, "When your heart is right, everything lights up, and it certainly did at the Roosevelt Open." That epitomizes how Martha Adams expressed herself, and that is the way she treated people.

ROOSEVELT OPEN CHAMPIONS

1983: ???
1984: ???
1985: Tien Chou/James Mills 4.5/5 (48 players)
1986: Calvin Blocker/Ben Finegold/Ray Stone 4.5/5 (67 players)
1987: Ben Finegold/James Mills/Ray Stone 4.5/5 (64 players)
1988: Ron Burnett/Dennis Gogel 4.5/5 (67 players)
1989: Dana Mackenzie 5/5 (68 players)
1990: Ron Burnett 5/5 (75 players)
1991: Ron Burnett 4.5/5 (52 players)
1992: John Dowling/Gary Terry 4.5/5 (54 players)
1993: John Dowling/Dana Mackenzie 4.5/5 (50 players)
1994: Dennis Gogel/Boris Men 4.5/5 (52 players)
1995: John Dowling/James Mills 4.5/5 (46 players)
1996: Charles Adelman/Sergey Berchenko 4.5/5 (36 players)
1997: Illyr (Sonny) Kamberi 4.5/5 (36 players)
1998: Jeff Dennis 4.5/5 (20 players)
1999: Enrico Sevillano 4.5/5 (43 players)
2000: Chaene Kingrey/Scott Ramer/Jeff Sword 4/5 (23 players)
2001: Alex Lewis 4.5/5 (35 players)
2002: ???

Sources: Various issues of the Ohio Chess Bulletin, U.S. Chess Federation crosstables, and the Dayton Chess Club Review. 

I have not been able to find any information about the 1983 and 1984 Roosevelt Opens. 

It appears that the 2002 Roosevelt Open was not rated by the U.S. Chess Federation; the results are not posted by USCF online, nor do they appear in any issues of the Ohio Chess Bulletin. My personal records show that I scored 3/5 and did not win a prize in the 2002 Roosevelt Open.

Author's Personal Note:

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 1, I summarized my chess career up to January 2023. The 1987 Roosevelt Open was my second two day weekend USCF rated tournament (after the 1987 Gem City Open), and in round four I scored my first ever win in a rated tournament game. I finished with 1.5/5. 

It is an understatement to say that chess tournament demographics have significantly changed since I began my chess career. I received a Walkman radio for being the youngest player at the 1987 Roosevelt Open--and I was less than two weeks short of my 16th birthday at the time! Today, most tournaments have many players who are much younger than 16. 

At the 1987 Roosevelt Open, I met Ben Finegold, a strong teenage Master who later became a Grandmaster (and popular YouTuber). I was astonished to watch him playing pool in the Ellison Senior Citizens Center's recreation room in between moves of his tournament games; chess seemed to be very easy for him. In between rounds, I challenged Finegold to play speed chess. He played me with odds of five minutes to one, and beat me easily every time. I will never forget that experience for starkly demonstrating the differences between club players, Experts, Masters, and strong Masters. Those losses to Finegold did not discourage me; they inspired me to become a better player.

I received a mug for being the youngest player at the 1988 Roosevelt Open when I was almost 17. The top seeded player in the 1988 Roosevelt Open, International Master Igor Ivanov (2598), suffered a stunning second round loss to Class A player (1945) Robert Kirk. I remember that so many players crowded around that game's climactic moments that people were standing on chairs to watch the final moves. Ivanov bounced back to finish 4/5, tying for third-ninth place.

In the 1989 Roosevelt Open I was no longer the youngest participant, but I won a prize on merit at the event for the first time, scoring 3/5 to tie for first-fifth place in Class B. In the next eight Roosevelt Opens, I scored 3/5 six times but did not win a prize in any of those events. My friend/mentor Earle Wikle and I tied for second-third place in the 1998 Roosevelt Open with 4/5. In 1999, I scored 3.5/5 and tied for first-third place among Class A players. In 2000, I scored 3/5 and won the first prize in the Expert class.

Overall, I played in each Roosevelt Open from 1987-2002, and I won four prizes (not including the prizes for being the youngest player in 1987 and 1988).

Gem City Open History

The Dayton Chess Club hosted the Gem City Open annually from 1959-2019. The Gem City Open earned the USCF designation "Heritage Event" by virtue of being held for at least 25 years. During most of that time, the Gem City Open and the annual Dayton Chess Club Championship were the two most important events on the Dayton chess calendar.

I was surprised to learn that famous/infamous International Master Norman Tweed Whitaker was co-champion of the inaugural Gem City Open in 1959.

Grandmaster Alex Goldin holds the record with six Gem City Open titles (1998, 2003-04, 2008-10). Goldin, who once ranked in the FIDE top 100 in the world, emigrated to the United States from the former Soviet Union. He lived in Ohio for several years, and he frequently participated in Ohio chess tournaments. 

Four-time Gem City Open champions include two-time Ohio Chess Champion (1959, 1964) Richard Kause (1961, 1964-65, 1972), three-time Ohio Chess Champion (1971, 1974, 1978) Robert Burns, Jr. (1971-72, 1976, 1980), and Sergey Berchenko (1982, 1987, 2006-07).

International Master Ron Burnett, who is from Tennessee but has often participated in Ohio chess tournaments since the 1980s, won three Gem City Opens (1989, 1994, 2014). International Master Goran Vojinovic, who was a prominent chess coach in Ohio before he passed away in 2016 after suffering a heart attack at 53, won three Gem City Opens (2010, 2013, 2015).

Two-time Gem City Open champions include Richard Noel (1962, 1968), Tony Mantia (1972, 1978), Art Keske (1975-76), Hans Multhopp (1977, 1994), Dennis Gogel (1979, 1983),  Lester Van Meter (1985-86), Charles Schulien (1986-87), Ben Finegold (1987, 1993), Steve Wygle (1991, 2002), Boris Men (1993, 1997), Alex Wojtkiewicz (2000, 2003), and Will Sedlar (2014, 2018).

GEM CITY OPEN CHAMPIONS

I have never seen a complete list of the Gem City Open champions, so in the spirit of my articles about the Dayton Chess Club Championship and the Ohio Chess Congress I decided to compile the list.

1959: Jack O'Keefe/Norman T. Whitaker 5.5/6
1960: George Kellner 5/6
1961: Richard Kause/Jack Witeczek 5/5
1962: Richard Noel 5/5
1963: Thomas Wozney 5/5
1964: Richard Kause/William Martz 5/5
1965: George Berry/Richard Kause 4.5/5
1966: Isidore Yedlin (Argentina) 4.5/5
1967: Peter Webster 4.5/5
1968: Richard Noel 4.5/5
1969: Daniel Boyk 5/5
1970: Alan Kirshner 5/5 (98 players--most up to that time)
1971: Robert Burns, Jr. 5/5 (99 players--most up to that time)
1972: Robert Burns, Jr./Richard Kause/Ed Lawrence/Tony Mantia/George Sendeckyj/Charles Unruh 4.5/5 (93 players)
1973: Mark MacDonald/Andy Martin/Gregg Stark 4.5/5 (72 players)
1974: Randal Andrzejewski/Charles Kannal 5/5
1975: Art Keske 5/5
1976: Robert Burns, Jr./Art Keske 4.5/5
1977: Hans Multhopp 5/5
1978: Tony Mantia 5/5 (49 players)
1979: Dennis Gogel 5/5 (48 players)
1980: Brian Beard/Robert Burns, Jr./Milan Vukcevich 4.5/5 (75 players)
1981: David Glueck 5/5 (72 players)
1982: Sergey Berchenko 5/5 (99 players, tying the 1971 record)
1983: Dennis Gogel/Gregory Markzon 4.5/5 (68 players)
1984: Dan Meinking 4.5/5 (84 players)
1985: Charles Diebert/John Readey/Lester Van Meter 4.5/5 (90 players)
1986: Charles Schulien/John Vehre/Lester Van Meter 4.5/5 (88 players)
1987: Sergey Berchenko/Ben Finegold/Charles Schulien 4.5/5 (57 players)
1988: James Schroeder 4.5/5 (54 players)
1989: Ron Burnett 4.5/5 (51 players)
1990: Gary Terry 4.5/5 (37 players)
1991: Chris Dorr/William Harris, Jr./Bruce Steinfeld/Norris Weaver/Steve Wygle 4/5 (86 players in two sections; 46 players in Open section)
1992: Gregory Kaidanov 4.5/5 (68 players in two sections; 43 players in Open section)
1993: Ben Finegold/Boris Men 4.5/5 (63 players in two sections; 22 players in Open section)
1994: Ron Burnett/Hans Multhopp 4/5 (54 players in two sections; 16 players in Open section)
1995: Ram Dake 5/5 (62 players in two sections; 17 players in Open section)
1996: Greg Serper 4.5/5 (71 players in two sections; 20 players in Open section)
1997: Boris Men 4.5/5 (55 players in two sections; 28 players in Open section)
1998: Alex Goldin 4.5/5 (58 players in two sections; 20 players in Open section)
1999: Enrico Sevillano 4.5/5 (45 players in two sections; 13 players in Open section)
2000: Alex Wojtkiewicz 4.5/5 (47 players in three sections; 12 players in Open section)
2001: Alex Lewis 4.5/5 (52 players in three sections; 13 players in Open section)
2002: John Dowling/Steve Wygle/David Zimbeck 4/5 (66 players in three sections; 21 players in Open section)
2003: Alex Goldin/Alex Wojtkiewicz 4/5 (67 players in three sections; 25 players in Open section)
2004: Alex Goldin/Stanislav Kriventsov 4.5/5 (58 players in five sections; 17 players in Open section)
2005: Anna Zatonskih 4.5/5 (65 players in four sections; 13 players in Open section)
2006: Sergey Berchenko/Ananth Pappu/William Wright 3/4 (43 players in three sections; 16 players in Open section)
2007: Sergey Berchenko/Tim Holman/Andrew Kobalka 3/4 (40 players in three sections; 12 players in Open section)
2008: Xiaobo Dong/Alex Goldin/Emory Tate 4/5 (55 players in four sections; 17 players in Open section)
2009: Alex Goldin 4.5/5 (71 players in four sections; 20 players in Open section)
2010: Alex Goldin/Goran Vojinovic 4.5/5 (62 players in four sections; 17 players in Open section)
2011: Walker Griggs 4.5/5 (84 players in four sections; 22 players in Open section)
2012: Sergey Kudrin 5/5 (65 players in three sections; 21 players in Open section)
2013: Goran Vojinovic 4.5/5 (111 players in three sections, setting the all-time Gem City Open record; 40 players in Open section)
2014: Ron Burnett/James Mills/Will Sedlar 4/5 (80 players in three sections; 32 players in Open section)
2015: Goran Vojinovic 4.5/5 (91 players in three sections; 40 players in Open section)
2016: Fidal Corrales Jimenez/Priyadharshan Kannappan/Ruifeng Li/Chao Zhang 4/5 (72 players in two sections; 36 players in Open section)
2017: Vladimir Belous/Andrey Stukopin 4.5/5 (66 players in two sections; 41 players in Open section)
2018: Will Sedlar 4.5/5 (39 players in two sections; 20 players in Open section)
2019: Mika Brattain 4.5/5 (46 players in two sections; 29 players in Open section)

Sources: Various issues of the Ohio Chess Bulletin, U.S. Chess Federation crosstables, and the Dayton Chess Club Review.

Results from the 1959-1978 Gem City Opens are listed in the February 1979 issue of the Dayton Chess Club Review, which also mentioned that 1180 players participated in the first 20 Gem City Opens--but that issue lists only Kause as the 1972 champion, contradicting the April 1972 Dayton Chess Club Review issue that lists six winners. The April 1972 issue was published right after that year's Gem City Open, and is thus likely the more reliable source.

Special thank you to four-time Dayton Chess Club Champion (1976-77, 1992, 1994) and two-time Gem City Open Champion (1972, 1978) Tony Mantia for providing information about the 1981 and 1982 Gem City Opens.

1973 Gem City Open co-champions (photo from March/April 1973 Ohio Chess Bulletin)

Author's Personal Note:

I participated in 29 of the 33 Gem City Opens between 1987 and 2019, missing only 1998, 2015-2016, and 2018. I won a prize eight times.

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 1, I summarized my chess career up to January 2023. My first USCF rated tournament was the 1987 Gem City Open. I was 15 years old. I scored 0/5, cried after my fifth round defeat, and earned a provisional rating of 1186.

Two-time Ohio Chess Champion (1950, 1985) James Schroeder won the 1988 Gem City Open in memorable fashion, upsetting Sergey Berchenko with Black in the fifth round. I scored 1.5/5 that year, and finished the tournament with a rating of 1470. I vividly remember watching the Berchenko-Schroeder game and trying to predict each player's next move--without much success, as I lacked the requisite chess knowledge to understand what was happening. Schroeder annotated this game for the 1988 "Special Gem City Open Issue!" of the Dayton Chess Club Review, and he began with this declaration: "In the first place (which this game is for) I consider any person who complains about receiving the Black pieces in any game to be a fool. I have never played an important game with Black where I could say: 'My opponent played a perfect game and I never had a chance to win.' You don't find perfect players in Amateur Chess, especially at a fast time control. Even Vukcevich gave me a chance at the Croatian Open a couple of years ago. I missed it, however, and he won." Here is that exciting Berchenko-Schroeder game from the 1988 Gem City Open, with selected annotations by Schroeder (and one note from Stockfish 16, which of course did not exist in 1988):

1988 Gem City Open

Sergey Berchenko vs. James Schroeder

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bc4 Qb6 7. Nb3 a6 8. Be3 Qc7 9. f4 e6 10. O-O b5 11. Bd3 Bb7 12. a3 Be7 13. Qf3 Rd8 14. Qg3 O-O 15. Nd4 d5 16. e5 Nxd4 17. Bxd4 Bc5 18. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 19. Kh1 Ne4 20. Qh4 g6 21. Rf3 Rd7 22. Ne2 d4 23. Re1 f5 24. exf6 Nxf6 25. Rg3 Ne4 26. Rh3 Stockfish 16 highlights this as the decisive mistake. (26. Rg4 maintains equality.) 26...e5 27. Rf3 Rdf7 28. fxe5 Rxf3 29. gxf3 Nd2 30. Qxd4 Schroeder: "This surprised me and I took my time because I had plenty of it, trying to find some simple win. But it isn't there, so I was forced to play a 'Reinfeldian Brilliancy.' Nxf3 Schroeder: "I used five minutes making certain that the Queen 'sacrifice' led to mate." 31. Qd7 Schroeder: "Now I looked to see if White was threatening a mate in one." Nxe1+ 32. Qxb7 Rf1+ 0-1

I scored 2.5/5 in the 1989 Gem City Open to win the Class C prize, the first time that I won a prize in a rated two day open tournament. As I moved up the rating ladder, I continued to win Gem City Open prizes: I finished first U1900 (3.5/5) in 1991, first U2100 (2.5/5) in 1996, and tied for third-seventh overall (3/5) in 1999. After the Gem City Open format switched from one section to two sections in 1991 (and more than two sections in some of the years after that), I played in the Open section most years--but in 2004 my rating had dipped below 2000, and I followed the advice of my coach (Grandmaster Anatoly Lein) to not play "up" but rather learn to dominate my current rating class; I scored 5/5 to take first place in the U2000 section, a nice reversal of my 0/5 performance in the 1987 Gem City Open. In 2005, I regained Expert status, and I tied for third-sixth in the Gem City Open's Open section with 3/5. I tied for third-ninth in the Open section of the 2010 Gem City Open, also with 3/5. Thus, the closest I came to joining the list of Gem City Open champions were my three third place finishes in 1999, 2005, and 2010.

One of my favorite Gem City Open memories happened in 2000. I scored 2.5 in the first four rounds, and was happy to win my fourth round game to set up a last round matchup with the top seeded player, Grandmaster Alex Wojtkiewicz--but when the pairings were posted I was paired versus someone else. I could have just accepted the easier pairing--I was in contention to receive a prize if I won my last game--but I protested that the last round pairings were wrong. After much discussion, the tournament director admitted that I was right, and he paired me against Wojtkiewicz, who proceeded to grind me down in a long game. I did not notice that fellow player Boris Utkin had taken three pictures of me and Wojtkiewicz during the game, but the next time that I saw Utkin he presented the pictures to me--and he had written on the back of one of them, "We like to play with strong chess players."

 

Friedman versus Wojtkiewicz, 2000 Gem City Open (photo by Boris Utkin)

Chess is about more than rating points and it certainly is about more than money. Yes, I like to play with strong chess players, and I like for the pairings to be correct even if that means facing the strongest player with a prize on the line. Another memorable part of that situation is that Wojtkiewicz became upset with me during the game because he felt that I did not resign soon enough; during the game, he left the playing site to go to Spaghetti Warehouse for a drink (or two), and after the game he initially refused to analyze with me. Andre Jaworowski, a mutual friend, intervened and explained that I always fight to the bitter end and that I meant no disrespect (correct on both counts). Wojtkiewicz eventually relented and agreed to analyze with me. I mentioned to him that at my level it is not so trivial to win a game when up a pawn so I was interested to see how he shut down any possible counterplay. I am not sure that he completely accepted that explanation, but I appreciate that a professional chess player took some time to share his insights with a dedicated amateur.

The Gem City Open was always one of my favorite tournaments--it meant so much to me that I tried to make it to the event in 1998 despite having incapacitating pain from a ruptured disk in my back--and I miss it very much, but I will cherish the memories forever and I hope that this article will foster appreciation for this important part of Ohio chess history.

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 10

On April 6, 2024, I played in my third Columbus Plus Score tournament, and this time I scored 3/4 after scoring 2.5/4 in each of my first two appearances. My rating (1971) did not change. I tied for first place with Manoj Ramachandran, who beat me in round two after I misplayed a winning position and then blundered away a chance to maintain equality. I ended my first round game with promising junior player Andrew Zhu (1698) by delivering an uncommon mate on an open board:

I scored 3.5/4 in the April 7, 2024 East Market Swiss, tying for first-second place and gaining 14 rating points to improve my rating to 1985. I took a bumpy road to the top, drawing in the first round versus Arman Abassi (rated 1485 after eight games, but rated 1643 after scoring 3/4 in this event) despite obtaining a two pawn advantage in the opening. I recovered to win my next two games, capping off my round three win against Keya Jha (the fourth ranked nine year old girl in the country) with a pretty checkmate:

In the last round, I faced Expert Bill Turner. I dropped an Exchange and a pawn by move 14. It is unusual for me to have a lost position out of the opening, but I steadied myself by recalling various winning positions that I have squandered recently: if I can lose from a winning position then why can't I win from a losing position? By move 24 I equalized, but at that point my pieces were more active than his and my position was easier to play. I created a passed pawn that ultimately decided the game in my favor. Near the end of the game, Turner had five pawns for a Rook, but I was able to promote my lone pawn while blockading his rampaging pawn armada.

I have known Turner for more than 30 years. Alex Zelner introduced us to each other, and I played my first rated game against Turner in the November 20, 1993 Wittenberg Tornado. Turner and I drew our fifth round game in the 2012 Kings Island Open to share first-fourth place in the U2100 section, and we also played each other at Kings Island in 2005 (I won) and 2013 (Turner won). 

I first played in the Cincinnati Open in 1994, and it has become one of my favorite (nearly) annual events. There have been a few years that it has not been held, and a few other years that I was not able to participate for various reasons, but this year marked my 14th appearance--and the sixth time that I won a prize (including a tie for first place in the U2100 section in 2013). I scored three wins and a draw in the first four rounds of the April 13-14, 2024 Cincinnati Open to set up a last round board one game versus Gajanan Jayade with a chance to clinch clear first place with a win, and to share first place with a draw. This was a rematch of our board one encounter in the final round of the March 30, 2024 Cincinnati Tornado, and--unfortunately for me--I got the same result: a loss. Instead of obtaining at least a share of first place, my score of 3.5/5 tied me for fourth-seventh place in the FIDE Expert section. I gained 20 rating points to improve my rating to 2005. This is the first time my rating has been over 2000 in 2024, preserving my streak of having a 2000 rating at some point in every year since 1995, the first year that I broke through the 2000 rating barrier. While it is great to reestablish an Expert level rating, my goal remains unchanged--2200--and the next step is the same next step that I used to recommend to my students: surpass the next 100 point level, which in this case is 2100. My rating has not been over 2100 since October 2016, but I reached 2080 as recently as October 2022.

I scored 2.5/4 in the April 27, 2024 Cincinnati Tornado, matching my score in the March 30, 2024 Cincinnati Tornado--and I also mirrored my March 2024 Cincinnati Tornado performance by obtaining a winning position on board one in the last round with first place on the line only to blunder and lose. Despite the missed opportunity in the last round, I gained eight rating points to increase my rating to 2013, and I tied for first-second place among players rated under 2001 (even though my unofficial live rating for this event was over 2000, my official published April 2024 rating was 1954)

On May 4, 2024, I played in my fourth Columbus Plus Score tournament, and this was the first time that I did not obtain a plus score. I blundered a piece in the first round and lost to a player rated below 1800 for the third time this year. I bounced back by winning two nice games, and then played poorly before blundering in the last round when a win on board two versus the top seeded Brett Passen would have earned a first place tie. My rating dropped 18 points to 1995.

In seven tournaments from March 23 through May 4, I notched three first place finishes, one fourth place finish, and one tie for first place in my rating class; in all seven tournaments, I played a last round game with an opportunity to finish in first place, and that is very important: no one wins every last round game with first place on the line, but if you put yourself in that position frequently and are well-prepared then you will win your fair share of those big games.

During Memorial Day Weekend, I played in the U2100 section of the Chicago Open, and my streak of being in contention for first place in the last round crashed to an end. In the first round, I defeated Stella Xin, the eighth highest rated eight year old in the United States--and the highest rated eight year old girl by over 100 points. Then, after drawing my second round game I defeated Ian Singh, the seventh highest rated eight year old in the United States. By the end of the Chicago Open, Xin gained 65 points to establish a new career-high rating of 1864, and Singh gained 45 points to set a new career-high rating of 1864 as well. Here is the pretty mate that I delivered versus Singh:

There are so many underrated junior players that this has a deflationary effect on the rating pool. I am playing a lot of these kids, and because their ratings have not caught up with their current skill level I am (1) not getting as many rating points as I should when I beat them and (2) I am losing more rating points than I should when I draw with them or lose to them. FIDE recognized this widespread deflationary effect, and calculated that it is particularly impactful to players rated below 2000 (for reasons that are beyond the scope of this article to explain); consequently, FIDE added rating points to the ratings of every player rated below 2000 to correct this deflationary effect. The USCF should take a similar step. 

Looking at the quality of my games and my winning percentage in the past year or so, it is fair to say that I am playing around the 2100 level now, but my rating is mired around the low 2000s in no small part due to rating deflation. My peak rating so far is 2190, so I understand what it means to play at a 2100 level, and I think that I am objective enough to honestly say that circa 2016-2022 I was not playing at that level but that in the past two years I am playing at that level again.

The Chicago Open started to go sideways for me in rounds four and five; I drew both games despite having a decisive advantage in each one. That set up a round six game versus Ray Sun, a player who was playing in just his seventh rated over the board event since 2023. His rating jumped from 1410 to 1711 during that time. Sun outplayed me to deliver my only loss in the tournament, and then he drew his last round game to finish in the money with an undefeated 5/7. It may sound like an excuse to say that he is underrated, but in the 2024 Chicago Open he gained 164 points to set a new career-high rating of 1875. I have played more tournaments in the past two months than he has played in the past two years, so it is fair to say that if he keeps playing his rating will keep going up with a larger sample size of games. I concluded the tournament with a draw, finishing with 4/7, and losing eight rating points to slip back to 1987; I had pushed my rating back over 2000 for most of the tournament, but the loss to Sun was costly.

After the Chicago Open's fifth round, I played in the Chicago Open Blitz, scoring 4/10. I scored 3.5/6 versus non-Master opponents, and .5/4 versus Masters. This was a very large Blitz tournament, with 77 players in the Open section and 79 players in the U1900 section. In recent years when I played in the Chicago Open Blitz, there were between 42 and 49 players in the Open section.

On June 1, 2024, I played in my fifth Columbus Plus Score tournament, scoring 3/4, and gaining three rating points to inch up to 1990. In the third round, I avenged my April 6, 2024 Columbus Plus Score loss to Manoj Ramachandran, but we both shared first place with Siddarth Kunapuli, who defeated me in the last round. Kunapuli also beat me in the first round of the 2023 Kings Island Open, a loss that I discussed in Journey to the National Master Title, Part 8; in between those two games, I beat Kunapuli in the March 10, 2024 East Market Swiss to secure clear second place. My most recent loss to Kunapuli is particularly frustrating because I had just pushed my live rating above 2000 after winning my first three games, and because I obtained a winning position by move 19 only to soon not only squander my advantage but fall into a mating net. Here is the position prior to my 19th move:

I should have played ...Bc5, creating the dual threat of taking on b2 and taking on f2, which overworks the Q defending both f2 and the Ne2. Stockfish 16 gives Black a nearly +2 advantage after ...Bc5. Instead, I played ...Nxf2 followed by ...Bc5, when White is slightly better. However, my opponent erred, and we soon reached an unusual position where I had a R and four Ps in exchange for a B and a N:

Stockfish 16 evaluates this position as dynamically equal--but after my opponent blundered with Rg2 I could have obtained a nearly +2 advantage with the powerful centralizing move ...Qd4. Unfortunately, I played ...Re1 with the idea of ...Qd1 followed by a Q trade and advancing my Q-side pawns; in general, my plan made sense, but chess often requires calculation of specific tactical lines and that is where I fell short here. White refuted my idea by playing Nf5 after ...Re1. I could have still salvaged equality with ...Qe4, but instead I lost after ...Qd1 because my opponent hit me with Nh6+ followed by trading Qs and decisively invading with his R on the e file. I could not hold off the combined onslaught of his R, B, N, and his suddenly powerful f pawn. The game ended when he promoted his f pawn to a N with check and then checkmated me with his R after I took his new N with my R:

Instead of resigning, I let my opponent play this pretty checkmate on the board. As a lover of chess beauty, I appreciate the artistic finish, but from a competitive standpoint it is disappointing that I squandered two opportunities to obtain a decisive advantage and then missed a chance to maintain equality.

On June 15, 2024, my daughter Rachel and I played in the three round Columbus G/60 tournament. This was Rachel's third rated tournament in 2024 after playing four rated tournaments (plus two Quick rated tournaments) in 2023. I scored 2/3, gained one rating point to move my rating up to 1991, and tied for second-fourth place. I sandwiched two nice wins around a second round loss during which I squandered a +3 advantage and then missed a way to force a drawn endgame. Rachel lost her first two games, and then won her third round game despite arriving 40 minutes late because she did not realize that the round had started; the lower section rounds start as soon as possible as opposed to starting at a set time, and I was not aware that Rachel was not at her board because I was still finishing my second round game when Rachel's third round game began. In an odd twist, Rachel's opponent never came back after playing his first move, so Rachel played her first move, waited an hour, and claimed a win on time!

Rachel was not able to attend the Chicago Open this year, but we wore matching 2024 Chicago Open shirts to the June 15, 2024 Columbus G/60 tournament

Rachel and I played in the June 27, 2024 Cincinnati G/24 tournament. The tournament was scheduled to be USCF quick rated, but the usual tournament director was not able to show up due to a back injury, so instead the tournament was changed to unrated G/24 quads. I scored 2/3 in the top-rated quad, beating my former student Colin Gohmann (2005 regular/1885 quick), losing to top-seeded Sunav Adhikari (2068/1763), and beating Ido Ater Datz (1559/1520) in the last round. Rachel lost all three of her games in the lowest-rated quad, but she had a great time, and she played several extra games throughout the night, including an untimed game versus FM Hans Multhopp.

Rachel enjoyed her game versus FM Multhopp on 6/27/24

On June 29, 2024, Rachel and I played in the Cincinnati Tornado. Rachel scored 1/4 in the U1001 section, but she had a highlight moment in the second round when she delivered a checkmate for the first time in a rated game (her previous two wins were on time). After I congratulated Rachel, she told me that she had learned that checkmate from me; that will always be one of my favorite chess moments! I scored 3/4, losing 10 rating points to slide back to 1981. I was the fifth seeded player in the 27 player Open section, and I finished tied for third-eighth place, winning the prize for first-fourth U2001 (there was not a third place prize). 

In my fourth round game versus Lucas Edwards, I did a pseudo-sacrifice of my Queen to reach a winning position. Instead of retreating my Q after my opponent played Nc3, I uncorked ...Qh1+:

My opponent took my Q, and then I regained the lost material plus more after ...Bxe3+.

Queen sacrifices inspire the imaginations of chess players from amateur level to Grandmaster level. There are two other Queen sacrifices from my chess career that stand out in my memory. In the first round of the September 2010 Ohio Chess Congress, I used a Queen sacrifice to defeat the reigning Ohio Chess Champion, NM Kris Meekins, forcing mate after 22.Qxh7+ Kxh7 23.Rh4+ Kg7 24.Bh6+:

In round eight of the April 2011 House of Chess FIDE Double Round Robin, I gave up my Queen to force a win versus NM William Wright. I had Black, and after my opponent played Nf3?? I played ...Qxf3!:

He replied Qxf3, and then resigned after I played ...Re1+ because after Kg2 I would have played ...h3++. Declining the Q sacrifice not only leaves White a piece down, but Black still has a forced mate after Qb1 Re3. 

My sparkling win against Edwards was a nice way to cap off the first half of 2024. In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 8, I listed four chess goals for 2024. Here are those goals, with notes about my progress toward each one through the first six months of the year:

1) Gain 60 rating points per quarter. I gained three rating points in the first quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1968 to 1971; I gained 10 rating points in the second quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1971 to 1981.

2) Do not lose any games to players rated below 1800. I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the first quarter of 2024, and I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the second quarter of 2024.

3) Accumulate more draws than losses. I had 15 draws and eight losses in the first quarter of 2024; I had seven draws and nine losses in the second quarter of 2024.

4) Maintain a winning percentage of at least .750, to break my personal record of .740 set in 2014. My winning percentage through the first two quarters of 2024 is .696.

In 2024, I have scored 53 wins, 22 draws, and 17 losses in regular rated tournament games with seven place finishes in 23 events. I have lost four games to players rated below 1800. My net rating gain for 2024 is 13 points so I need to gain 219 points to reach my goal.

NM Bernard Parham: Chess Innovator and Indiana State Chess Champion

National Master Bernard Parham passed away on Wednesday June 19 at the age of 77. Parham won the Indiana State Chess Championship in 1967, and he created the "Matrix System," an attacking method that he successfully used to win tournament games and as a teaching tool to introduce young people to chess. In connection with the "Matrix System," Parham also created a new form of chess notation based on the distinctive way that each chess piece moves; the U.S. Chess Federation approved Parham's chess notation for use in USCF rated tournaments.

The "Matrix System" is characterized by playing 2. Qh5 after 1. e4 e5. The early Queen move defies traditional opening principles that minor pieces should be developed first; when the Queen ventures out early, the opponent can gain time by attacking the Queen with less valuable pieces. Parham studied physics at Purdue, and he developed the "Matrix System" based on the notion that there is a connection between chess and vector analysis. 

Objectively, the "Matrix System" is not the best opening, but it has demonstrated its value in practical play. Not only did Parham achieve the National Master title (placing him in the top 1% of all rated U.S. players), but Parham's son Bernard Parham II is a Class A player who tied for first place in the 1994 National K-12 Championship (Grade 12) while using the "Matrix System."

This early Queen sortie has even been used at the game's highest levels. World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen played 2. Qh5 versus Shamsiddin Vokhidov in the 2018 World Rapid Championship. Carlsen lost that game--but not because of the opening, and in fact Carlsen missed a forced win on move 20. Carlsen did not win the World Rapid Championship in 2018, but he has won the event a record five times (2014-15, 2019, 2022-23), so he obviously takes it seriously and performs at a high level there.

Five-time U.S. Chess Champion Hikarua Nakamura, who has been ranked as high as second in the world, played 2. Qh5 versus GM Krishnan Sasikiran in the 2005 Sigeman tournament. Nakamura lost that game in 87 moves, but not because of the opening; he was close to winning at one point, but lost after he made a mistake and then pressed too hard instead of settling for a draw. Nakamura also played 2. Qh5 versus GM Nikola Mitkov in the HB Global Challenge, and versus GM Anton Filippov in the Second Champions Challenge, with both games ending into draws. Nakamura has used 2. Qh5 in many online chess games.

I first met Parham when he visited the Dayton Chess Club in the early 1990s. He was already a National Master, while I had yet to obtain Expert status or win the Dayton Chess Club Championship. Parham and I talked about his "Matrix System," and I expressed skepticism that this playing method was superior to traditional methods. Parham and I played several friendly blitz games, and he won most of those games. We talked about those games that night, and I maintained that he was beating me not because of the "Matrix System" but rather because he was a superior overall player; most of the games were decided because he outplayed me in the middlegame or endgame from equal or even inferior positions. Parham was without question both talented and hard-working; it is interesting to speculate about whether his "Matrix System" enabled him to maximize his talents, or if he could have been even stronger had he taken a more traditional approach to the game. I still am not sure what the correct answer is, but I disagree with those who just blithely dismiss his playing style and teaching methods; there is more than one way to attain mastery, and more than one way to keep students interested and engaged.

Nearly 20 years after we first met, I played my only rated game against Parham; by that time, I was rated close to 2100 USCF and within the next few years I would achieve my peak USCF rating (so far!) of 2190, while Parham's rating had dropped to 2010 (his health problems no doubt affected his chess rating). Interestingly, Parham did not play his "Matrix System" in this game, and we reached a standard position in the Giuoco Piano. I obtained an advantage out of the opening, but Parham equalized after I made a mistake on move 19 (Qb3 maintains a solid edge for White). After I blundered on move 32, Parham missed the winning shot 32...Ra1, and on move 34 he forced a draw instead of playing ...Qg4, which leads to a winning position. 

In short, this was an interesting--but far from perfect--battle that ended peacefully:

Event: Sunday in the Park (Columbus, Ohio) G/60 9/11/11 (4)
White: David Friedman (2094)
Black: Bernard Parham (2010)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4 4. O-O d6 5. Nxd4 exd4 6. c3 Qf6 7. f4 Be6 8. Qb3 O-O-O 9. Bxe6+ fxe6 10. Qa4 dxc3 11. Nxc3 Kb8 12. d4 c6 13. Be3 d5 14. Rac1 Ne7 15. b4 Nc8 16. b5 Nb6 17. Qc2 Rc8 18. bxc6 Rxc6 19. exd5 exd5 20. Qb3 Qe6 21. Rfe1 Bd6 22. Bf2 Qf5 23. Bg3 h5 24. Nb5 Nc4 25. Qa4 Ra6 26. Nxd6 Nxd6 27. Qb4 h4 28. Re5 Qf6 29. Bf2 Rxa2 30. Rxd5 Ne4 31. Qc4 Qxf4 32. Bxh4 Qe3+ 33. Kh1 Qf4 34. Re5 Nf2+ 35. Kg1 Nh3+ 36. Kh1 Nf2+ 37. Kg1 Nh3+ 38. Kh1 Nf2+ 39. Kg1 1/2-1/2

The last time that I saw Parham was at the April 1, 2023 Indianapolis Super Tornado. We had a nice conversation in between rounds, reminiscing about both our first encounter at the DCC and about our rated game. I told him that I am still trying to reach NM level, and that I have great respect for all players who have accomplished that feat. He provided encouragement to me about achieving this goal. Parham played in just two more rated tournaments, both in Indiana in 2023. 

Parham leaves behind a lasting legacy as a National Master who also taught and inspired many students. His "Matrix System" has not replaced mainstream opening theory, but it is an interesting contribution to our beloved game.

As chess computers have become more powerful and sophisticated, we humans have learned that opening ideas that look odd to human eyes are in fact quite playable. Chess is a combination of art and sport, and there is a scientific aspect to chess as well. Computers reveal the scientific aspect of chess by demonstrating the technically correct way to play, but humans love chess not only for the pursuit of objective truth but also for the creation of beauty and for the heart-pumping thrill of competition. 

Even though Parham conceived of the "Matrix System" as a scientific contribution to chess, I think that his approach has its greatest value from a sporting perspective; from a practical standpoint as an active tournament player, I know that even some opening lines that computers say objectively are not great are difficult for humans to counter under the stress of tournament conditions. Even if some super computer objectively refutes the "Matrix System," that would not change the reality that Parham used his system to achieve National Master status while beating and drawing many strong players along the way. In that sense, Parham is an artistic cousin to the great World Chess Champion Mikhail Tal, who once joked with self-deprecation that there are two kinds of chess sacrifices: his sacrifices, and correct sacrifices. As long as humans enjoy playing chess as a form of artistic expression and as a sport, the game will always be about more than just which moves are "objectively" correct.