Week 4 – USCL Recap

Week 4 – USCL Recap

Sep 21, 2010, 3:56 PM |

By FM Robby Adamson

Hey guys, I won blog of the week for this recap. Hope you enjoy it!

Week 4 produced another exciting week in the U.S. Chess League.  There were tons of exclams, blunders, and game changing performances.

Brief Summary of Week 4 -

In the Monday matches, Arizona moved to 4-0 with a close victory over the Dallas Destiny. Arguably the strongest team in the East, the New York Knights, won decisively despite some claims that the match was much closer than the 3.5-.5 score indicated. Philadelphia and Baltimore tied, literally, with all 4 games ending in draws! How often does that happen? I do not know, but not too often! [UPDATE: Per USCL Commissioner, Greg Shahade, this has occurred three times, but only 2 of those really count because one was the product of weather issues].  The surprise of the night to my eyes was St Louis failing to beat the struggling Miami Sharks.

In the Wednesday matches, New England managed to barely hang on against Boston, and tie the match 2-2. The surprise among the Wednesday matches was Carolina’s tie with the significantly favored New Jersey Knockouts, and more particularly, FM Ron Simpson’s huge upset win over GM Boris Gulko. The LA Vibe managed to defeat Chicago Blaze 3-1 in fairly decisive manner. The final match of the night saw San Francisco defeat Seattle in a very tough match that almost swung the direction of Seattle.

Monday Results -

Manhattan Applesauce vs. New York Knights    NY Knights win 3.5-.5.

Philadelphia Inventors vs. Baltimore Kingfishers  Tied, 2-2.

St. Louis Arch Bishops vs. Miami Sharks      Tied, 2-2.

Dallas Destiny vs. Arizona Scorpions            AZ wins 2.5-1.5.

Wednesday Results -

Boston Blitz vs. New England Nor’easters  Tied, 2-2.

New Jersey Knockouts vs. Carolina Cobras   Tied, 2-2.

Los Angeles Vibe vs. Chicago Blaze  LA wins 2.5-1.5

San Francisco Mechanics vs. Seattle Sluggers   SF wins 2.5-1.5

Let’s take a look at all the action from Week 4.

Manhattan Applesauce (1-2) vs. NY Knights (2-1).

GM Giorgi Kacheisvili is one of the more prepared GM’s out there, and he showed that in his game with Stripunsky, who always seems to avoid main line theory, especially with white. GM Stripunsky played 2.Nc3 and 3.Bb5 Anti-Sicilian, which can contain some serious venom if you are not prepared. Giorgi however equalized easily and immediately had a nagging pull the entire game  (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/stripunskykacheishvili10.htm). I will let you refer to New York’s Matthew Herman’s excellent recap of the entire Manhattan Applesauce vs. NY Knights match (http://newyorkknights.blogspot.com/2010/09/week-4-lucky.html).

On board 2, GM Pascal Charbonneau vs. IM Dmitry Schneider (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/charbonneaudschneider10.htm) started out as a 4 Knights – black did not play the more common 4….Nd4 and chose instead 4…Bd6, turned into an Italian type of game where black basically seemed to be up some tempos in the position and equalized easily after 18…d5.

After defending well for a long time and probably due to time pressure, black erred with 35…Re2? allowing a sexy knight fork with 36.Ne7 Kh7 37.Nxg6!

and white was able to convert his extra pawn.  New York was able to win on boards 3 and 4 where GM Fedorowicz defeated SM Gregory Braylovsky in a crazy game and Alexander Katz swindled James Black.

Philadelphia Inventors (1-2) vs. Baltimore Kingfishers (2-1).

The second match of the night featured Baltimore fielding a nice 2450 average rated team against Philly’s 2390 team.  Baltimore has to feel like they let one get away. GM Magesh Panchanthan and GM Sergey Erenberg played a very straightforward equal game where neither side was able to even sniff an advantage. Board 3 had less action than board 1 - FM Karl Dehmelt vs. IM Ray Kaufman started as a Panov Botvinnik Caro-Kann and quickly turned into a well-known drawish ending. Quite simply, it is just equal with little chance to win. Also, before looking at the board 2 encounter, on board 4 NM Ricky Seltzer pushed for a win but the cagey veteran IM Richard Costigan was able to defend a slightly worse position without too much difficulty. However, Board 2 featuring GM Larry Kaufman (BAL) vs. FM Tom Bartell (PHL), is the one that got away from Baltimore. Larry Kaufman immediately got the usual slight edge that white gets in the Kings Indian, and dominated for much of the game before succumbing to perhaps fatigue and the usual USCL randomness. Let’s take a look.

Kaufman,Larry (2452) – Bartell,Tom (2429)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0–0 5.Nf3 d6 6.Be2 Na6 7.0–0 e5 8.Be3 Ng4 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.Re1 h6 11.Bc1 c6 12.h3 Nf6 13.Bf1 Nh7?!

[13...Nh5 this is better as the knight nerves no purpose on h7 - on h5, black can at least play Nf4 in some positions.] 14.Be3 Qe7 15.Qd2 exd4 16.Bxd4 Rd8 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Rad1 Be6 19.Nd4 Qg5 20.f4 Qc5 21.f5

[The move 21.f5 is not bad but he misses a chance to end things quickly. 21.e5!

this is a crusher - the pin on  the d-file looks dangerous initially but white has the resource Na4 at the right moment  as the following shows. 21...d5 (21...dxe5 22.Rxe5 Qb6 23.Na4 Qc7 24.Rxe6) 22.cxd5 Bxd5 23.Bxa6 and white is doing well ) 21...Bd7 22.Kh1 Nf6 23.Nb3 Qe5 24.fxg6 fxg6 25.Qxd6 white is a clean pawn up and should not have too many difficulties converting 25...Re8 26.c5 Nc7 27.Na5 Re6 28.Qxe5 Rxe5 29.b4 Rae8 30.a3 [30.Nxb7 Rb8 31.Na5 Rxb4 even here whte is better after 32.Rd6 - black's bishop is tied down and has no activity 32.Rd6 whte is clearly better here and mayne just winning; however, what Larry played is practically good because white is not in a hurry] 30…Ncd5 31.Nxd5 Nxd5 32.Nxb7 Rxe4 33.Rxe4 Rxe4 34.b5! obvious but best – white is active here and black’s minor pieces are not coordinated 34…Rf4 35.Kg1 Kf6 36.bxc6 Bxc6 37.Na5

[37.Nd8! the evil computer finds this stronger. Why? Because after 37...Ba8 38.c6 Rf5 39.Rb7. The game continuation gives white an opportunistic check with g4+ as follows -  37...Ne3 38.Rd6+ Kf5 39.g4+! Ke4 40.Bd3+! Kf3 41.Nxc6 winning] 37…Ne3 38.Re1 [38.Rd6+ Kf7 39.Nxc6 Rxf1+ 40.Kh2 Rf2 41.Ne5+ Ke8 42.Rxg6! winning] 38…Nc2 39.Rc1 Nd4 40.Nxc6 Nxc6 41.Bb5 Nd4 42.Ba6 Ne6 43.c6 Nc7 44.Bb7 Rf5 45.Rc4 a5 46.Bc8 Re5 47.Bd7 Ke7 48.Rc3 Kd6 49.Rf3 Nd5 50.Rf8 Re3 51.a4 Ra3 52.Rh8 h5 53.Be8 Nf4 54.Rh7 Rc3 55.Rd7+ Ke6 56.Ra7 Rc2 57.c7 Kd6 58.Kf1 h4 59.Rxa5 Rxc7 60.Ra6+ Ke5 61.Bxg6 Rg7 62.Ra5+ Kd4 63.Be8 Nxg2 white has managed to squander his edge and now the game is drawn64.Rh5 Ke3 65.Bc6 Nf4 66.Re5+ Kd3 67.Rf5 Ke3 68.Re5+ Kd3 69.Rf5 Ke3 70.Re5+ Game drawn by repetition ½–½

St. Louis Arch Bishops (1.5-1.5) vs. Miami Sharks (0-3)

St Louis “only” fielded 2 GMs this week, with Hikaru Nakamura and Ben Finegold leading the charge.  Miami has been disappointing thus far but you can always count on GM Julio Becerra to play well – and he needed to as he had the unenviable task of playing GM Hikaru Nakamura (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/nakamurabecerra10.htm).

This game started with a typical Hikaru first move 1.b3 and was played at a very rapid pace by Hikaru. The pawn structure reminded me of a delayed Exchange Ruy (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Bxc6 dc 7.d3, which is considered equal.

However, black had his queen on h6 with the ability to rook lift with Re6, Rg6. Then Becerra decided to sacrifice the exchange with 14…Rxg4! which is not intuitive at first glance. However, Becerra’s vision paid dividends here.

After 14…Rxg4! 15.hg Nf6 16.g5 Qxg5 Hikaru strangely played 17.f4? immediately sacrificing his king position. It sure seemed like 17.Nf3 or 17.Nc4 was better.

After 19.fxe5, black has a perpetual, so I am guessing Hikaru, sensing his team needed a win from him, avoided the potential perpetual and rolled the dice with 19.Re1 – unfortunately black now is clearly better after 19…exf4, with the idea of playing g5 at the correct moment. Team events make you do things you would not normally do!

The game proceeded with some nice play by Becerra – however Becerra missed a knockout blow with 28…Rxe5!

After which 29.Nxe5 Qh2+ 30.Kf1 Qh1+ 31.Ke2 Ne3!! and white cant stop mate without giving up his queen – such potential for GOTW!!

Hikaru, to his credit, hung in there and was able to salvage the draw in a rook ending though Becerra still had multiple opportunities to cash in.

Board 2 had the strong smell of preparation as GM Renier Gonzalez, making his season debut for Miami, blitzed out a lot of theory in a Grand Prix, and GM Ben Finegold walked right into his preparation. The following position apparently is in some book (maybe a reader can supply the source)- and black is just dead.

A very dirty move indeed!! Black had no defense and Ben had to concede a few moves later.

Perhaps the strangest part of the match was Spencer Finegold giving NM Andres Santalla a draw in a clearly winning position. Perhaps Spencer thought a draw was all that was needed or expected of him?

The last match of the night involved my Arizona Scorpions vs. Dallas Destiny. John Gurczak has posted an excellent review of the match on the Scorpions blog  -(http://arizonascorpionchess.com/2010/09/scorpions-improve-to-4-0-maintain-1st-in-the-west-by-john-gurczak/). 

Below are my annotations of my win over FM Keaton Kiewra of Dallas (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/kiewraadamson10.htm).

(14) Kiewra,Keaton (2361) – Adamson,Robby (2363) [B20]
USCL Dallas vs Arizona Internet Chess Club (4), 13.09.2010

1.e4 c5 2.a3

 Ok. I definitely did not expect this move. Keaton is well booked but I never saw this coming -not in a million years! Not gonna lie here – I started laughing as I saw the move 2.a3 come across the screen. 2…g6 I played this move with the intention of transposing into a Panov Botvinnik Caro Kann, up a tempo of sorts with white having wasted a move with a3. I also considered playing 2…e6 or 2…Nc6 with the idea of reaching some sort of Wing Gambit or French Wing Gambit. In the end, I decided not to reward white’s play with aiming for a gambit type of position.

3.d4 I also did not expect this either – I was half-way expecting 3.b4 Bg7 4.Nc3 3…cxd4 4.c3 ah ha – a Smith Morra Gambit with a3 and g6 thrown in! I only can explain not taking the gambit pawn with my plan of heading for a Panov Botvinnik 4…Bg7 5.cxd4 d5 6.exd5 the other way of playing the position is to play 6.e5 which again transposes to a c3 Sicilian with 1.e4 c5 2.c3 g6 4.d4 cd 5.cd d5 6.e5 – except again, its debatable whether white can make use of a3. 6…Nf6 7.Bc4 0–0 [7...Nxd5 I probably should have taken here - because the usual response to this is Qb3 - the problem is black can play e6, 0-0 and play Nc6 with the idea of Na5, and black is much better] 8.Nc3 Nbd7 9.Ba2 Nb6 10.Qf3 consistent – hard to find fault with this move since white has gone this far 10…Bg4 11.Qg3 Bf5 12.Nf3

12…Ne4?!  I thought this was a good move at the time but now I am not so sure. I think better would have been 12…Nfxd5 or 12…Nbxd5 with the idea of taking on c3, and playing Rc8 attacking the hanging pawns 13.Qh4! this is a good move because it keeps the pressure on black due to some possible Bh6, Ng5 ideas – and maybe even Bg5 13…Nxc3 14.bxc3 Nxd5 15.Bxd5?! I was shocked Keaton played this move – it seemed so anti-positional. I expected 15.Bh6 where I have to find [15.Bh6 Nxc3 16.Ng5 Nxa2 (16...Qxd4) ; 15.Bd2 Rc8 this seems better because white doesnt have to give up his a2-bishop immediately] 15…Qxd5 16.0–0 Rfe8?! this is dubious at best – I had delusions of playing e5 and using my 2 bishop edge to hit the weak pawns on the queenside [16...Rac8 this is better 17.Bd2 Rfe8 the insertion of these moves now ties down white's bishop to guarding c3]

17.Bh6 Rac8 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Rfe1 Qd6 [19...Rxc3 of course I wanted to play this but I decided to go for more, thinking that my long term positional advantage would play itself out once I consolidated. I was concerned that after 20.Rxe7 Rxe7 21.Qxe7 Be4 22.Ne5 Bxg2 23.Nxf7 I was not sure whether this was sufficient to win - but as I look at it now, I think black has excellent chances to win] 20.Re3 Rc7 21.g4!? wow. As my friend IM Mac Molner would say, “if that move doesn’t lose, its a good move” (more words than he usually utters). I think despite its apparent ugliness, Keaton makes a good practical choice though I am sure the positional players out there were probably screaming and sending rampant and spam-like tells on ICC.

21…Bc8 22.g5 I was in bad time pressure here (What’s new?) and realized this isnt so easy for black 22…b6 [The purpose of this move is to re-position the bishop onto a better diagonal, hoping for long-term pressure. Note that 22...Qd7 this fails to 23.Ne5 Qf5 24.Rf3!]

23.Qh6+ Kg8 24.Re4 I felt here that black had the long term advantage of having a strong bishop – if I could consolidate I was sure black would be better 24…f6! [24...f5 this is favored by the computer but I really dont believe it is best to allow 25.Re3, Ne5, f3 idea; I figured I needed a little more tension in the position, rather than fixing my pawns on light squares]

25.Rh4 e5! All of the sudden, he position begins to open up and white’s king looks rather exposed. White’s queen is stuck on the h-file, hemmed in by the rook on h4.

26.gxf6 Qxf6 [I spent a lot of time looking at 26...Bb7!? 27.dxe5 Qc6 28.Rf4 but I didnt see 28...Qxc3 so I decided to play it safe and follow my original plan of consolidating; apparently 26...exd4 was even stronger] 27.Nxe5 Rf8! this makes white make a decisionwith regard to guarding the f2-pawn and fortunately Keaton makes the wrong one 28.f4? [28.f3 this makes more sense in that it doesnt give black unfettered access on the b7-h1 diagonal - I am sure black has adequate compensation] 28…Bb7 29.Re1 Rg7! this is a great move in that it consolidates the position and possibly threatens g5 ideas! 30.c4 the point is to play d5 and kill the bishop – the problem is white’s position starts to fall apart because he cant improve his position anymore while black can 30…Qd6! 31.Rd1  Qxa3 the evil computer likes 31…Rf5 with the idea of Rh5!! – I saw this but wanted to activate my queen, and get my pawn back 32.Rh3 Qb2 33.d5 Qe2 [33...Rf5!] 34.Rdd3 Qe1+ 35.Kg2 Qe2+ I played this to gain a little time on the clock as I was living on the 30 second increment 36.Kg1 Qe1+ 37.Kg2 Qe4+ 38.Rdf3

38…b5! I had seen this idea a long time ago and was itching to play it – now it makes perfect sense as the center collapses and my bishop rules the day. The rest is easy. 39.Qg5 bxc4 40.Ng4 Bxd5 41.Nf6+ Rxf6 42.Qxf6 Rf7 43.Qb2 Qxf4! White resigns 0–1.

My win, along with a beastly effort from NM David Adelberg and nice save from Levon “The Solid” allowed us to defeat Dallas 2.5-1.5.

Now onto the Wednesday matches -

Boston (2-1) vs. New England (3-0) - 

Boston appeared to be in good shape when GM Larry Christiansen played a novelty 11.Ng5 – something he later claimed was not a good novelty, and quickly defeated IM Sam Shankland (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/larrycshankland10.htm).

(17) Christiansen,Larry (2665) – Shankland,Sam (2567) [B12]

USCL Boston vs New England Internet Chess Club (4), 15.09.2010

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.Be3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Ne7 8.Nd2 Nbc6 9.N2f3 Be4 10.0–0 Ng6 11.Ng5 this move is a novelty – and one where Larry later said was not a promisong one.  However, Shankland is very well prepared so it must have surprised him. Previously seen were 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Nd4 Nxe5 13. f3 Bg6 14.f4 Nd7 15. Nxc6 Qc7 16.Nd4 Bc5 in the game Hracek – Postny, Sibenik 2008, and 11.c4 Be7 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13. cxd5 Bxd5 in the game Karjakin vs. Anand, Nice 2009. Sam failed to find the best continuation and soon Larry capitalized.

11….Ngxe5 12.f4 Nxd4 13.fxe5 Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 Bg6 15.Nxf7 Bxf7 16.Qb5+ Qd7 17.Qxd7+ Kxd7 18.Rxf7+ Kc6 19.c3 Re8 20.Raf1 a6 21.a4 Rg8 22.b4! Not that this is the best move of the game but it just shows that white can be patient, taking away all of black’s options and does not need to hurry things.  Black really doesnt have much he can do.

Be7 23.g4 Kd7 24.Kg2 Kc8 25.b5 axb5 26.axb5 Kd8 27.Bb6+ Kd7 28.Bc5 Kd8 29.Ra1Black resigns 1–0.

Unfortunately for Boston, Shmelov was unable to hold what appeared to be a slightly worse position vs. IM Robert Hungaski, who, to his credit, kept the game going a long time, knowing he had to win in order for New England to tie the match.

New Jersey (1-2) - Carolina (0-3)

New Jersey slipped up against the underdog Carolina Cobras, when Craig Jones, needing a win to salvage a tie match, was finally able to defeat a game effort from New Jersey’s Anna Matlin (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/cjonesmatlin10.htm). However, the moment of the night for Carolina, and probably the entire week 4, was FM Ron Simpson’s defeat of USCL-stud, GM Boris Gulko. The game ended abruptly when Gulko (playing a rare game with the black pieces) inexpliably played 33…h5??, allowing an immediate decisive shot 34.Qg5!

(22) Simpson,Ron (2330) – Gulko,Boris (2587) [B42]

USCL New Jersey vs Carolina Internet Chess Club (4), 15.09.2010

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Be7 7.Nc3 d6 8.a4 b6 9.Be3 Bb7 10.Qg4 Bf6 11.Rd1 Nd7 12.Qg3 Qc7 13.0–0 Ne7 14.Bf4 Ne5 15.Bb5+ N7c6 16.Be2 0–0 17.Rd2 Rac8 18.Rfd1 Rfd8 19.Be3 Nb4 20.f4 Nd7 21.Rxd6 Nxc2 22.Bf2 Nb4 23.e5 Be7 24.R6d2 Nc5 25.Nd4 Ne4 26.Nxe4 Bxe4 27.Qe3 Bb7 28.f5 Bd5 29.Qg3 Kh8 30.Bg4 Bg5 31.Be3 Bxe3+ 32.Qxe3 exf5 33.Nxf5 h5? [33...Be6 was better, though white is still better even here].

34.Qg5! black cant stop mate or Qxh5+ 34…Qxe5 35.Qxh5+ Kg8 36.Nh6+ wins the queen and caused Gulko to resign 1–0.  A shocking end to the game – will this tied match with Carolina cost NJ a playoff spot? Time will tell.


LA Vibe (1-2) - Chicago Blaze (2.5-.5).

The LA Vibe played a very solid match defeating the Chicago Blaze 3-1. GM Melik Khachiyan outplayed Dmitry Gurevich on board 1:http://www.uschessleague.com/games/khachiyangurevich10.htm

Meanwhile IM Andranik Matigozian seemed to be in control for most of the game in his win over Shulman-killer Florin Felecan. http://www.uschessleague.com/games/felecanmatikozyan10.htm

 LA was able to clinch the match when LA’s Tatev Abrahamyan defeated Chicago’s USCL stud, IM Angelo Young (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/abrahamyanyoung10.htm).  Angelo never seemed to coordinate his pieces and Tatev netted the full point with some nice attacking moves and patience.

(28) Abrahamyan,Tatev (2385) – Young,Angelo (2415) [B56]

USCL Los Angeles vs Chicago Internet Chess Club (4), 15.09.2010

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bd7 6.f3 a6 7.Be3 e6 8.Qd2 Qc7 9.0–0–0 Nc6 10.g4 Ne5 11.g5 Ng8 12.f4 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Qxc4 14.f5 Ne7 15.fxe6 fxe6 16.Rhf1 Ng6 17.Nb3 Be7 18.Bc5 Rd8 19.Bb6 Rc8 20.Qe3 Bb5 21.Rf2 Qc6 22.Na5 Qd7 23.Qg3 Rf8 24.Rfd2 Kf7 25.Nb3 Bc4 26.h4 Kg8 27.e5 d5 28.h5 Nf4 29.Be3 Nxh5 30.Qh3 Bxb3 31.axb3 Rxc3 32.bxc3 g6 33.Rxd5 Qc6 34.Rd6 Qxc3 35.Qxe6+ Rf7 36.Bd4 Qf3 37.Bb2 Nf4 38.Qc8+ Rf8 39.Qc4+ Rf7 40.Rd8+ Bf8 41.Rxf8+ Kxf8 42.Qc8+ Black resigns 1–0.

San Francisco (2-1) vs. Seattle Sluggers (1-2)

The final match of the night was close, though really San Francisco almost blew it. Overall, IM David Pruess played a solid game in defeating Seattle’s FM Cozianu (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/cozianupruess10.htm), while FM Steven Zierk seemed to have a much better position, when he blundered, playing too fast in FM Michael Lee’s time pressure. http://www.uschessleague.com/games/zierklee10.htm.

This loss opened the door for Seattle to win the match, basically coming down to the board 1 encounter between GM Josh Friedel vs. GM Varuzhan Akobian (Michael Wang (SEA) – Yian Liou  (SF) was the last game to finish but Yian could not find a way to win a pawn up rook ending).  Josh played very well throughout the game, and kept his nerves especially toward the end. Josh did not panic in time pressure, and found some precise moves to finish the game off. This game has a great chance of winning GOTW! [UPDATE: This did win GOTW!].

(31) Friedel,Josh (2575) – Akobian,Varuzhan (2698) [C06]

USCL San Francisco vs Seattle Internet Chess Club (4), 15.09.2010

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 (Friedel usually plays 3.Nc3) Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ngf3 Be7 8.0–0 a5 9.Qe2!? (9.Re1 cd 10.cd Qb6 11.Nb1 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Nc3 is more standard – white seeks to make use of the b5-square)

9…a4 10.Rd1 Qb6 11.Nf1 a3 12.bxa3 c4 You really have to have patience to play positions like this because black is forced to defend the kingside for the entire game. Black aims to defend for a long time and eventually break on the queenside.

13.Bc2 Bxa3 14.Ng5 Nf8 15.Ne3 Qc7 16.Qg4 Ne7 17.h4 Bxc1 18.Rdxc1 h6 19.Nh3 Rg8 20.a4 Bd7 21.Qd1 Ra5 22.h5 Kd8 23.f4 Kc8 24.Qf3 Kb8 25.Rf1 g6 26.Ng4 Rh8 27.Nf6 Bc6 28.g4 Nd7 29.g5 Nf8 30.gxh6 Rxh6 31.Ng5 Nf5 32.Kf2 gxh5 33.Rh1 h4 34.Ng4 Rh8 35.Bxf5 exf5 36.Ne3 Ne6 37.Nxf5 Nxg5 [37...Bxa4 hard to believe white isnt better here]38.fxg5 Rxa4 39.Rxa4 Bxa4 40.Nd6 Qb6 41.Nxf7 (a daring move by white – but it makes sense – black does not have enough material to attack) 41…Rf8 42.Rxh4 Qb2+ 43.Kg3 Bd1not sure if Josh saw this move but it definitely was pleasing to the ICC onlookers 44.Qxd1 forced, but this wins  44…Rxf7

45.Qe1! a nifty defensive move in time pressure – nice find by Josh. It threatens e6, guards c3 and f2 and seems to cover everything.

45…Qc2 46.e6 Qd3+ 47.Kh2 Rf1 48.Qg3+ Ka7 49.Qxd3!

49…cxd3 50.Rh3 Rf2+ 51.Kh1 d2 52.Rd3 Re2 53.Rxd2 Rxe6 54.Rg2 Rg6 55.Kh2 Kb6 56.Kh3 Kb5 57.Kg4 Kc4 58.Rg3 b5 59.Kf5 Rg8 60.g6 b4 61.cxb4 Kxd4 62.Kf6 Kc4 63.Rg4+! d4 64.g7 Rd8 65.g8Q+ Rxg8 66.Rxg8 Kxb4 67.Rd8 Kc3 68.Ke5 d3 69.Ke4 d2 70.Ke3 Black resigns 1–0.