King’s Indian in Saint Louis
Final Combined Standings (Rapid counts double)
1 Hikaru Nakamura, 22.5/36 (USD 37,500)
2 Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, 21.5/36 (USD 25,000)
3 Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, 21.0/36 (USD 20,000)
4 Fabiano Caruana, 20.0/36 (USD 15,000)
5 Levon Aronian, 18.0/36 (USD 12,500)
6 Sergey Karjakin, 17.0/36 (USD
10,000)
7 Leinier Dominguez, 16.0/36 (USD 7,500)
8 Alexander Grischuk, 15.5/36 (USD 7,500)
9 Wesley So, 15.0/36 (USD 7,500) 10 Viswanathan Anand, 13.5/36 (USD 7,500)
Mamedyarov and Nakamura shared first in the rapid with 6/9. MVL scored a crushing victory in the blitz making 13.5/18 a whole three points clear of Nakamura. The rules for the Saint Louis Rapid and Blitz stipulate that the Rapid portion counts for double, so the overall winner was Nakamura with a joint first place in the Rapid and second in the blitz.
Wesley So finished near the bottom of the combined. This was a letdown because in the previous Rapid & Blitz events of the Grand Chess Tour he had won the first leg held in Lueven, Belgium, and finished third in the second leg held in Paris. In both Leuven and Paris Wesley had won the Rapid section.
Here in Saint Louis he started badly and could not recover. Seventh in the Rapid and ninth in the Blitz (out of 10 players) can be considered a relative failure. Let us concentrate on the bright spots in his tournament and hope that he recovers from his weaker moments here. So, Wesley (2852) Grischuk, Alexander (2751) [E99] Saint Louis Rapid 2018 Saint Louis (8), 13.08.2018
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0–0 6.Be2 e5
The famous Mar del Plata Variation of the King’s Indian Defense, I give a short history of the line below so you would appreciate the usual plans of attack for both colors.
7.0–0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Nd3 f5 11.Bd2 Nf6 12.f3 f4 13.Rc1 g5 14.c5 Ng6 15.Kh1!?
A new move. Wesley has studied the Mar del Plata from the White side intensively since Nakamura and Ding Liren are so good with it from the Black side. Usually the continuation here is. 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Nb5 Rf7 17.Qc2
Ne8 18.a4 h5 with a lot of exciting chess ahead.
15...Rf7 16.Rg1 Bf8
As you will see from the game Najdorf vs Gligoric below this setup for Black was envisioned by Gligoric 65 years ago and it is still going strong!
17.g3 Rg7 18.cxd6 cxd6 19.gxf4 gxf4 20.Bf1 Bd7 21.Be1 Kh8 22.Qb3 Nh5 23.Nb5 Nh4 24.Rxg7 Nxg7 25.Nf2 Qb6 26.Nh3 <D> 26...Be7?
The losing move. After the game Grischuk himself pointed out the line 26...Nxf3! 27.Qxf3 Bxb5 28.Bxb5 Qxb5 29.Ng5 Qd7 30.Qg4! Qxg4 31.Nf7+ Kg8 32.Nh6+ Kh8 where White can win back the queen but is better off his giving perpetual with the knight.
27.Bf2! Qd8 28.Bxh4! Bxh4 29.Nxd6 Qe7 30.Qxb7
White is already winning.
30...Rg8 31.Rc7 Qxd6 32.Rxd7 Qc5 33.Rc7 Qe3 34.Qb3
White must of course not allow ...Qxf3+
34...Qe1 35.Qd3 Ne8 36.Rc6 Bf2 37.Qe2 Qxe2 38.Bxe2 Bd4 39.d6 Nf6 40.Bc4 Rb8 41.b3 h6 42.Be6 Kg7 43.Rc7+ Kg6 44.Bf7+ Kg7 45.Be6+ Kg6 46.Bf5+ Kh5 47.d7 Rd8 48.Rc8 Bb6 49.b4 Ng8 50.a4 a5 51.Rc6 Bd4 52.bxa5 Rb8 53.Rc8 Rb1+ 54.Kg2 1–0
The Mar del Plata Variation was the invention of the Yugoslav chess legend Svetozar Gligoric, who unleashed this new plan of development for Black in this game against Miguel Najdorf in the Mar del Plata International Tournament in 1953. He was to use it again successfully later in the same tournament against the tough-to-beat Erich Eliskases. Najdorf must have been very impressed with the idea, for he used it himself as Black against Mark Taimanov in the famous 1953 Zurich Candidates match-tournament and won quite a remarkable victory. From then on it became known as the “Mar del Plata Variation.” Najdorf, Miguel Gligoric, Svetozar [E99] Mar del Plata International–16 Mar del Plata (12), 28.03.1953
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0–0 6.Be2 e5 7.0–0
Gligoric later remarked that the “Mar del Plata Variation” should have been named after him instead of the city where it was played, for he was really its creator. He drew a parallel with the great Akiba Rubinstein who invented the Meran Variation of the Semi-Slav, only to have the variation named after the place where they played it for the first time (1924 Meran) and not the person who developed it.
Surprisingly enough there is a line here named after Svetozar Gligoric, but it is from the White side, the one starting with 7.Be3 instead of 7.0-0 as in the game. Gligoric pointed out the irony here, for he played this way only to avoid facing his own Variation, the Mar del Plata! 7...Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Nd3 In his notes Gligoric commented that the most normal move here would be to play 10.Be3, but Najdorf had pondered on that at length and decided not to give Black additional incentive to play ...f7–f5– f4. Later in the tournament another famous player, GM Erich Eliskases, did play 10.Be3, and here is what happened: 10.Be3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Nd3 Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.Rc1 Rf7 16.Qb3 g4 17.fxg4 Nxg4 18.Bxg4 Bxg4 19.Qxb7 f3 20.Be3 Nf4 21.Bxf4 exf4 22.gxf3 Bh3 23.Kh1 Bxf1 24.Rxf1 Bd4 25.e5 dxe5 26.Ne2 Rb8 27.Qc6 Qf6 28.Nxd4 exd4 29.d6 cxd6 30.Qd5 Kh8 31.cxd6 Rg7 32.d7 Rd8 33.Ne5 Rdxd7 34.Nxd7 Qg6 35.Qa8+ Rg8 36.Qxg8+ Qxg8 37.b3 Qg5 38.Re1 d3 39.Ne5 d2 40.Nf7+ Kg7 41.Rd1 Qh4 42.Kg2 Qe1 0–1 Eliskases, E-Gligoric,S Mar del Plata 1953. 10...f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bd2 Nf6!? Gligoric's new line of attack. Previously Black would go 12...Rf6 followed by 13.g5 and either ...Rg6 or ...Rh6.
13.b4 g5 14.c5 h5 15.Nf2 Ng6! Consistent with the overall plan. Black will continue ...Rf7, ...Bf8 and ...Rg7 or ...Rh7.
16.Rc1 Rf7 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.a4 Bf8 19.a5 Rg7 20.h3 Nh8!
Preparing to push the g-pawn.
21.Nb5 g4 22.fxg4 hxg4 23.hxg4 a6 24.Na3 Bd7 25.Nc4 Rc8 26.Nb6 Rxc1 27.Bxc1 Be8 28.Ba3 Nf7 29.Qc2 Nh6 30.g5
The g-pawn is doomed anyway, so Najdorf baits the Black rook to leave the 7th rank.
30...Rxg5 31.Rc1 Rg3 32.Bb2 Nfg4 33.Nxg4 Nxg4 34.Bxg4 Rxg4 35.Qf2 Bg6 36.Rc4 Qe7 37.Bc3 Qh7 38.Qe2 Rh4 39.Kf2 f3! 40.Qe3 Rf4 41.gxf3 Qh2+ 42.Ke1 Qh1+ 43.Ke2 Bh5 44.Kd2 Rxf3 45.Qg5+ Bg7 46.Kc2 Rf2+ 47.Bd2 Qd1+ 48.Kc3 Qa1+ 0–1
Here is the famous Taimanov-Najdorf game. Taimanov, Mark E Najdorf, Miguel [E99] Candidates Tournament Zuerich (4), 05.09.1953
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0–0 6.Be2 e5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Nd3 Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.Rc1
Annotating this game many years later Vladimir Kramnik pointed out that
the bishop on f2 would have been more useful if it was on d2.
15...Rf7 16.Rc2 Bf8 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.Qd2?
White has to look for an improvement here. The text move appears to be too slow.
18...g4 19.Rfc1 g3
Kramnik: In general, in all positions of this kind, Black can always execute this pawn sacrifice without thinking or calculating. The prerequisite for this is that a white piece should be on f2, otherwise White may have the possibility h2–h3. If White has no piece on f2, i.e. can play h2–h3, Black must be able to sacrifice a piece as soon as possible on h3, preferably the Bc8 (d7). Otherwise, the lines on the kingside are closed and the attack is over.
20.hxg3 fxg3 21.Bxg3 Nh5
Black will be putting one of his pieces on f4 and then follow-up with ...Qg5.
22.Bh2?
Clearly a mistake as the diagonal c1– h6 is now very vulnerable. For better or for worse the bishop should have gone to f2 so that he can relocate to e3.
22...Be7 23.Nb1 Bd7
[23...Bg5? 24.Rxc8 Rxc8 25.Rxc8 Qxc8 26.Qxg5]
24.Qe1 Bg5 25.Nd2 Be3+ 26.Kh1 Qg5 27.Bf1 Raf8 28.Rd1 b5
Preventing Nc4.
29.a4 a6 30.axb5 axb5 31.Rc7 Rg7 32.Nb3 Nh4 33.Rc2 Bh3
Black already had 33...Rxf3! 34.gxf3 Qg1+ 35.Bxg1 Rxg1+ 36.Kh2 Nxf3#
34.Qe2
[34.gxh3 leads to mate: 34...Qg1+ 35.Bxg1 Rxg1+ 36.Kh2 Nxf3#]
34...Nxg2 35.Bxg2 Bxg2+ 36.Qxg2 Qh4 37.Qxg7+ Kxg7 38.Rg2+ Kh8 39.Ne1 Nf4 40.Rg3 Bf2 41.Rg4 Qh3 42.Nd2 h5 43.Rg5 0–1
White now resigns as he realizes that mate cannot be prevented.
And that, my dear readers, is the history of the Mar del Plata Variation.
BOBBY ANG is a founding member of the National Chess Federation of the Philippines (NCFP) and its first Executive Director. A Certified Public Accountant (CPA), he taught accounting in the University of Santo Tomas for 25 years and is currently Chief Audit Executive of the
Equicom Group of Companies.