Chess Piece -- By Bobby Ang

Philippine chess hierarchy

Philippines’ Top 10

FIDE Rating List

January 2010

1. GM Wesley So 2656

2. GM Rogelio Antonio, Jr 2572

3. GM Darwin Laylo 2556

4. IM Rogelio Barcenilla 2518

5. GM John Paul Gomez 2507

6. GM Eugene Torre 2506

7. GM Mark Paragua 2497

8. GM Joseph Sanchez 2490

9. IM Roland Salvador 2472

10. IM Julio Catalino Sadorra 2466

Based on the latest FIDE Rating List GM Wesley So at 2656 remains the top player from the Philippines. This also makes him the 77^th highest rated player in the world and, still only 16 years of age, the 6^th among the world’s Juniors (under-20).

Wesley is ranked no. 8 in Asia. Never seen the Asian best list before? Well, here it is:

Asia’s top 10 Players

FIDE Rating List

January 2010

1. GM Viswanathan Anand IND 2790

2. GM Wang Yue CHN 2749

3. GM Wang Hao CHN 2715

4. GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov UZB 2702

5. GM Bu Xiangzhi CHN 2673

6. GM Penteala Harikrishna IND 2672

7. GM Ni Hua CHN 2657

8. GM Wesley So PHI 2656

9. GM Surya Shekhar Ganguly IND 2654

10. GM Krishnan Sasikiran IND 2653

Yup, that’s right -- four Chinese, four Indians, one Uzbek and a Filipino.

One of the Philippines’ most theoretically prepared players is IM Julio Catalino Sadorra. He is also among our hardest-working players too, although he has the tendency to upset a highly rated GM one round and then lose badly to an untitled hustler in the next.

"Ino" recently won the "SOS" (Secrets of Opening Surprises) Prize in Issue no. 11 for employing a novelty suggested in SOS issue no. 10.

In SOS no. 10 the Russian GM Igor Lysyj wrote an article on the Kruppa Variation of the Gruenfeld Indian, a position arising out of the opening moves: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bg5.

The Kruppa Variation

White’s idea is to tie Black temporarily to the defense of the e7-pawn and succeed in advancing his pawn to d5. Lysyj then looked at the various Black attempts at counterplay and how he can meet them. Among this mass of variations is the following game, won by the brilliant attacker from Israel:

Lysyj, Igor (2576) -- Sutovsky, Emil (2629) [D85]

Moscow Aeroflot op-A (6), 19.02.2007

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bg5 c5 8.Rc1 0-0 9.Nf3 Bg4 10.d5 f5 11.Qb3 Kh8 12.Qxb7 Nd7 13.d6 Bf6 14.Bxf6+ exf6 15.Be2 Rb8 16.Qd5 Re8 17.h3 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Rb2 19.Qd1 fxe4 20.0-0 e3 21.Rc2 exf2+ 22.Rxf2 Rxc2 23.Qxc2 Qb8 24.Qd3 Re6 25.Bf1 Rxd6 26.Qe4 Nb6 27.Re2 Rd8 28.Qc6 Qg3+ 29.Kh1 Qd6 30.Re8+ Kg7 31.Qxd6 Rxd6 32.Re7+ Kh6 33.Rxa7 Nd5 34.Kg1 Nxc3 35.a4 Nd1 36.Re7 Nb2 37.a5 c4 38.Rc7 Ra6 39.Bxc4 Rxa5 40.Bg8 Kg5 41.Bxh7 Nd3 42.Bg8 Kf4 43.Rc6 Kg3 44.Kf1 Re5 45.Re6 Rxe6 46.Bxe6 Nf4 0-1

Lysyj made the following comments on this game:

1) The move 10...f5 was first employed in this game.

2) He (Lysyj) had played extremely badly and lost after 12.Qxb7. Better would have been 12.Nd2! and he claims an advantage for White.

Well, in the following game Sadorra gets a chance to use this idea, and even improves on it! With his permission, I am reproducing his notes below.

Sadorra, Julio Catalino (2451) -- Kazhgaleyev, Murtas (2626) [D85]

8^th Asian Continental Open Subic Bay PHI (1), 13.05.2009

[JC Sadorra]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bg5

This was a perfect surprise line to play against my opponent especially because he does not have any past experience with it, at least according to the database.

7...c5 8.Rc1 0-0 9.Nf3 Bg4 10.d5 f5 11.Qb3 Kh8 12.Nd2!

As given by Igor Lysyj in SOS-10. The game Lysyj-Sutovsky, Moscow 2007, had seen the inferior 12.Qxb7.

12...Nd7

[12...h6 13.h3 Bh5 14.Bf4 RPA: Ino left this hanging without any comment. I assume he meant that White is better]

13.h3!?

In my pre-game preparations, I remember seeing pushing away the bishop on g4 followed by the Qxb7 idea so I tried to work it out. In the end 13.h3 became more logical to me simply because it prevents ...fxe4.

In fact 13.f3 Bh5 14.Qxb7!? was recommended by Igor Lysyj.

13...Bh5 14.Qxb7 Rb8 15.Qa6 h6 16.Bf4 fxe4?

Understandable. Seeing that almost all variations work against him, my opponent decided to drastically change the character of the game, forcing me to act with great care and precision. After 16...Rb6 17.Qxa7 Black does not have enough compensation for the two pawns.

I prepared to meet 16...Ne5 with 17.g4! fxg4 18.Bxe5 Bxe5 19.hxg4 Rb6 20.Qe2 winning.

17.Bxb8 Qxb8

SOS editorial note: White is also winning after 17...e3 18.fxe3 Qxb8 19.g4 Qg3+ 20.Kd1 Nf6 21.Bc4; and 17...Nxb8 18.Qe6 g5.

18.g4 Qb2

[18...Qf4 19.Qe2 Ne5 20.Qe3 winning]

19.Kd1!

Both 19.Rb1 Qc2 and 19.Rd1 Bxc3 20.Be2 Ne5 give Black counterplay.

19...Nb6

RPA: I have to make a correction here. After 19...Rxf2 Ino indicates that both

1) 20.Nxe4 Rf4 21.Nd2 Bxc3 22.Qd3 Bxd2 23.Qxd2 Rd4 24.Bd3 Qxd2+ 25.Kxd2 Ne5 26.Rc3 c4 27.Ke3 Rxd3+ 28.Rxd3 Nxd3 29.gxh5 gxh5 30.Kd4 and

2) 20.Nc4 Qb8 21.Be2 (21.Qe6? Rxa2!) 21...Qf4 22.Rc2 wins.

That is incorrect, as only the first line is sufficient for the full point. After 20.Nc4 black has the resource 20...Bxc3! and now 21.Nxb2 Rd2+ 22.Ke1 Rc2+ 23.Kd1 Rd2+ is a perpetual.

20.Qb5

Giving back some material to ‘put the fire out’.

20...Qxa2 21.Bc4 Qa3 22.Ke2 Na4 23.Qb3 Qxb3 24.Bxb3 Nxc3+ 25.Rxc3 Bxc3 26.Nxe4 Bd4 27.gxh5 gxh5 28.Rg1

The move 28.Rb1 may objectively be better, but I preferred to keep my rook on the board, which allows me to attack Black’s e-pawn more easily.

28...Rf4 29.Bc2 Rf5 30.Bb3 Rf4 31.Kd3!

Consistent with my 28^th move. This makes a statement that my d-pawn is stronger than his h-pawns. 31.Bc2 Rf5 32.Rg6? Rxd5 33.Rxh6+ Kg7 and every pawn exchange brings Black closer to a draw.

31...Rf3+ 32.Kc4 Rxh3 33.Rg6 Rh1

[33...Rf3 34.Re6 h4 35.Rxe7 h3 36.d6 h2 37.d7 and my d-pawn queens with mate!]

34.Re6 Rc1+ 35.Kd3 Rb1 36.Nd2 Ra1 37.Rxe7 Bxf2 38.d6 Bh4 39.Nf3 c4+

[39...Bf6 40.Rf7]

40.Bxc4 Rd1+ 41.Ke4 Bf6 42.Ne5! And Black resigns as he can’t handle the passed d-pawn and the looming mate threats. 1-0

You keep reading in the papers about our chessplayers complaining about the government not giving them enough money to support themselves. What you don’t see in the papers is that many of our chessplayers just play billiards and computer games while waiting for the next handout. A few years ago our First Gentleman made a substantial financial contribution to make sure that our chessplayers were adequately prepared for the SEA Games, and they responded with one of their worst performances.

The problem, therefore, is not solely not enough money. There is also not enough theoretical preparation on the part of our players. Julio Catalino Sadorra is a shining example of how hard our players should be working.