Nonetheless, sometimes things come up that just have to be answered—and if this something impedes my ability to play chess, then I am going to answer it with full force.

The something was an email from Ankit Gupta which included a “suggestion” from Randy Hough, the purpose of which was to (to quote Ankit) “discourage” my participation in a tournament that Ankit had advertized online and for which I qualified.

The full text of the email will appear below.

But first, let’s go back to the beginning and take the events in order. As mentioned, I’m doing everything I can to make it possible to play in Croatia in November. And I don’t just want to play—I want to win, for only by taking first place will I gain the Grandmaster title!

One thing I need to do is play strong competition to prepare myself for a tournament that will be full of GMs and IMs. I played in such a tournament recently, the Western Pacific Open, April 24-26. I played in this event only after some hesitation, for the tournament was organized and directed by Ankit Gupta. Now Ankit Gupta had previously run a completely illegal tournament, Metro 12, November 9-13, 2011, a tournament with appalling physical conditions (think human feces overflowing the toilets in the Calmart Center), no arbiter and blatant violations of FIDE rules. Ankit also reneged on a contract with me, and then lied publicly about his tournament in Chess Life Online. I wrote a blog about Metro 12 that I posted on November 27, 2011, called “The Crap Attack, the Snoring Organizer and the Big Lie.” I gave an accurate journalistic account of the tournament. Having done that, I did not make any more public comments on the event, except to respond to some comments made by Metro Chess employee Konstantin Kavutskiy.

I said what needed to be said—it’s a crime that chess rules should be treated with such disrespect, and that Ankit Gupta would then lie about the event on a trusted news source like Chess Life Online just made matters worse.

Nonetheless, I have other things going on in my life: I said what had to be said and moved on.

So about a year and a half went by. In this time, Ankit Gupta and his Metro Chess have essentially taken over all big time Los Angeles chess. I don’t have a car, so I’m limited to city public transportation, and I want to play tough competition. This is essentially impossible to find in Los Angeles, unless one plays in a Metro event. So as mentioned above, I went ahead and played in the Western Pacific Open.

The tournament went pretty well for me. I got the strong competition I wanted: I defeated IM Amanov with the King’s Gambit, I drew IM Matikozyan as Black in a Two Knights Defense, and I drew against GM Matamoros on the White side of the King’s Indian, Four Pawns Attack. I tied for third in the tournament, and there were no conflicts at the event.

I then saw advertized on the metrochessla.com website a qualifying event for a future GM round robin tournament. A GM round robin was just what I needed for training purposes, and I felt sure I could win the Qualifier.

So I sent this message to the Metro website:

May 4, 2013

Dear Metro Chess:

I would like to play in the 27th Metro Qualifier, May 10-12. I would just like to confirm that if I won this event, I will play in the next GM RR. Also, when would that GM tournament take place?

Please confirm, and then I can pay the EF ($99) in cash at the first round.

Tim

I think anyone would agree that this is a simple professional message. I was in the correct rating range for the Qualifier, I had the EF ready, and the tournament was advertized to the public on metrochessla.com

This is the response I got:

From: Ankit Gupta
To
Tim Taylor
Randall Hough
garden909

Tim,

cc: Randy Hough
cc: Steve Morford

As to your queries about the 27th FIDE Qualifier.

A qualifier winner has the “first right of refusal” for a GM norm event, with only a prior qualifier winner having a super-ceding right of refusal.

There have been three qualifier winners for GM norm events thus far: Larry Remlinger, Madiyar Amerkeshev and Robert Akopian.

Larry Remlinger and Madiyar Amerkeshev are playing in GM norm events this month, so only Robert Akopian would have a prior right of refusal over a winner in the upcoming qualifier.

Yes, first qualifies into a GM norm RR (round robin) or GM norm DRR (double round robin).

The next GM norm RR/DRR that is not already full would be in August 2013.

The below I was planning on messaging you regardless.

That said, and I had a discussion with Randy Hough about this yesterday, and this was a suggestion by Randy, given you so vehemently publicly attacked our organization and Randy, that you at least apologize on some level to the organization and Randy if you wish to play in future events run under Metropolitan Chess, Inc. Right now, irrespective of such, I’m not even sure why you would want to play in an event of ours given such attacks.

Despite all the public attacks by you, we never once reciprocated in such public forum attacks towards you or otherwise.

I’m not going to currently refuse your participation which is within our right as the qualifier and norm event is not a USCF Gran Prix, but I would discourage it based on how things stand now.

I have cc:ed Randy Hough, who is privy to this prior communication and whom I discussed and consulted with this on yesterday, and Steve Morford, who was present during said discussion.

Whew! I’ve offended the mighty Ankit and now I’m supposed to “apologize” to him and Randy Hough (for what is not specified, but presumably for telling the truth) “if you wish to play in future events run under Metropolitan Chess, Inc”

So, let’s see: blackmail me into lying (since any apology would be a lie, as I did nothing wrong and only reported the truth) if I want to continue to make a living as an International Master and professional chess player. Ankit, even by your standards, that’s astonishingly low! And this brilliant idea was “suggested” by Randy Hough! So an International Arbiter and US Chess director thinks this is a good idea: force a false apology before one can play in a chess tournament. Does Steve Morford, president of SCCF, feel this is a good idea too? At this point, the world has turned so upside down, one can hardly guess!

Anyway, here I am, a professional chess player for most of my life, a US Open Champion, and Southern California Open Champion, sixty years old now and preparing for a great event, the World Senior Championship. I’m one of the few IMs in Los Angeles, a player with a well deserved reputation for fighting chess—and poor Ankit and Randy want to prevent me from playing in tournaments (since as they know I will never apologize for telling the truth), prevent me from making a living—because their feelings were hurt by an accurate article I wrote a year and a half ago.

I almost feel sorry for them—not!

Why would Ankit bring up the past like this, when the facts of the case are so detrimental to him? Who knows!

In any case, the email was sent, so let’s go through the “Ankit Attack Email” line by line.

From: Ankit Gupta
To
Tim Taylor
Randall Hough
garden909

Tim,

cc: Randy Hough
cc: Steve Morford

As to your queries about the 27th FIDE Qualifier.

A qualifier winner has the “first right of refusal” for a GM norm event, with only a prior qualifier winner having a super-ceding right of refusal.

There have been three qualifier winners for GM norm events thus far: Larry Remlinger, Madiyar Amerkeshev and Robert Akopian.

Larry Remlinger and Madiyar Amerkeshev are playing in GM norm events this month, so only Robert Akopian would have a prior right of refusal over a winner in the upcoming qualifier.

Yes, first qualifies into a GM norm RR (round robin) or GM norm DRR (double round robin).

The next GM norm RR/DRR that is not already full would be in August 2013.

The above is professional and there’s nothing wrong with it.

The below I was planning on messaging you regardless.

That said, and I had a discussion with Randy Hough about this yesterday, and this was a suggestion by Randy, given you so vehemently publicly attacked our organization

Hold it right there! I don’t call my article an “attack” but rather good journalism. However, if you want to call it an attack, fine: but I didn’t attack some vague “our organization.” I called you by name, and here it is again: You, Ankit Gupta, ran an illegal international tournament with no International Arbiter. You, Ankit Gupta, lied about that fact publicly in Chess Life Online. You, Ankit Gupta, presided over violations of FIDE rules such as providing favoritism for one player. You, Ankit Gupta, had a public time forfeit reversed for a favored player (Matikozyan) while your mismanagement led to an hour of time lost by a non-favored player (Haessel). You, Ankit Gupta, reneged on a contract with me. And now you, Ankit Gupta, want me to “apologize” and you, Ankit Gupta, “discourage” me from playing in the only major tournaments in Los Angeles.

and Randy

Hold it again! I never “attacked” Randy in my “Crap Attack” article. I simply stated the fact that International Arbiter Randy Hough did not show up for any of the nine rounds of Metro 12, even though he was the director of record, and is still listed as such on the US Chess website. It is absurd to call a simple statement of fact as this quote from my article an attack: “Chief Arbiter Randy Hough never appeared.” It seems that, according to Randy, telling the truth about him—that he never appeared at the tournament—is an “attack”, so then one wonders what is not an attack? Telling a lie that he was there? Even MChess Content Manager Konstantin Kavutskiy wouldn’t go that far, as in his comments on my article he wrote, “I was not trying to refute any of your claims about the chief arbiter.”

But what is weird is that Randy wants to bring all this up. Why would he shoot himself in both feet in this way? Probably most people have forgotten Metro 12. I myself was ready to move on. And yet (remember the “apology” in the Ankit Attack Email was Randy’s idea) Randy forces the issue? Why? There is no way Randy looks good in the whole Metro 12 debacle. First of all, though he is the International Arbiter of record, he never shows up. Then, the tournament is horribly run, rife with violations of FIDE rules. If he is in fact the Arbiter of record, then why didn’t he stop games being played offsite and favoritism for Matikozyan? If he actually withdrew as Arbiter, then why did he allow his name to be used by Ankit not only on the US Chess tournament results page, but also on Chess Life Online? If someone had lied about me being present at an event, when I was never there, I would have spoken up immediately! “Hell no,” I’d say, “I was never there! Don’t pin these illegalities on me!” But Randy just lets his name be used to aid Ankit’s illegal tournament. And so the final question, so far unanswered, is this: Why would an International Arbiter allow his name to be used for an illegal tournament?

, that you at least apologize

I have nothing to apologize for, and I won’t apologize for telling the truth.

on some level to the organization and Randy if you wish to play in future events run under Metropolitan Chess, Inc.

This is blackmail, pure and simple.

Right now, irrespective of such, I’m not even sure why you would want to play in an event of ours given such attacks.

The “s” on “attacks” is wrong, Ankit. I said my piece in a single article which you construed as an attack. I have not publicly written about this issue or Metro Chess in general since November 27, 2011. However, you have now forced my hand, and I may write more about Metro Chess in the future.

As to why I wanted to play in Metro events, I’ve explained that already. You are the only game in town for tournaments with strong opposition that can be reached by public transportation. Since I need to play in such tournaments to prepare for the World Senior, I was ready to play in them in a professional manner and let the past be past. However, you insisted on bringing up the past, and you tried to blackmail me into apologizing for the privilege of playing in your events. I will not be coerced in such a manner.

Despite all the public attacks

Wrong “s” Ankit! Call it an attack if you must, but there was only one negative article!

by you, we never once reciprocated in such public forum attacks towards you or otherwise.

What are you going to say about me? “IM Taylor played in many Metro events. He played hard to win in every game, followed the rules and was courteous to his opponents, win or lose.” Yes, that should be enough! You can’t have a guy like that in your tournaments, can you?

I’m not going to currently refuse your participation which is within our right as the qualifier and norm event is not a USCF Gran Prix, but I would discourage it based on how things stand now.

This whole paragraph sounds like a FIDE ethics violation to me, more on that later.

I have cc:ed Randy Hough, who is privy to this prior communication and whom I discussed and consulted with this on yesterday, and Steve Morford, who was present during said discussion.

That’s the end of the email. There is no closing or signature, but at the top of the email it is identified as being “from Ankit Gupta.” I have already raised a couple of questions for SCCF president Steve Morford as to whether he approves of illegal tournaments and so on. So let’s move on.

The next question that comes up is what can I do about this attempt to blackmail an apology out of me? The answer is simple: file a complaint with the FIDE Ethics Commission. A quick look at the FIDE website shows many relevant cases of potential ethics violations, for example:

2.2.3 Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
2.2.4 Failure to comply with normally accepted standards of courtesy and chess etiquette. Misbehavior of a personal nature which is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.
2.2.5 Cheating or attempts at cheating during games and tournaments. Violent, threatening or other unseemly behavior during or in connection with a chess event.
2.2.6 Players withdrawing from a tournament without valid reason or without informing the tournament arbiter.
2.2.7 Gross or repeated violations of FIDE Laws of Chess or other approved tournament regulations.

All of these above except 2.2.6 appear to have been violated by Ankit Gupta.

And then, the next two seem quite relevant for Randy and Ankit!

3.3 Tournament arbiters who fail to act in accordance with the codes can lose their authorization or refused the right to supervise FIDE tournaments for a period of up to 3 years. In such cases any new authorization will only be granted accordingly to ordinary regulations.
3.4 Tournament organizers who act in contravention of the code, can be refused the right to organize FIDE events for a period of up to 3 years.

Watch out, Randy and Ankit!

I have started procedures to file this ethics complaint, and will update on this site as I move forward.

One more thing about the ethics violations: the best thing about this case is I have direct evidence from a Metro Chess employee of exactly how at least one FIDE rule was broken. The evidence comes from our friend Konstantin Kavutskiy!

I have to admit when I first read Konstantin’s comments on my “Crap Attack” article I just laughed it off; it seemed hardly worth replying to, except for the fact that he completely ignored the fact there was no International Arbiter and completely ignored Ankit Gupta’s “Big Lie”, that is the false reporting on Metro 12 in Chess Life Online.

But I felt I should call him on those two, and as mentioned above, he did admit to the first, “I was not trying to refute any of your claims about the chief arbiter.” He completely ignored the second, but he precisely stated how FIDE rule 1.42 g was violated (this was drawn to my attention by another commenter on the blog, “Caissa”). Following is the rule.

1.42g Tournaments that make changes to favor one or more players (for example by altering the number of rounds, or the order of rounds, or providing particular opponents, not otherwise participating in the tournament), shall be excluded.

As I understand it, what that last word “excluded” means is that the tournament does not qualify for norms.

Now there was no doubt that changes were made to Metro 12 to favor one player, that is, IM Andranik Matikozyan. One recalls that Matikozyan was paired with FM Kavutskiy in Round 2. While all other games were being played in the playing site, we watched as Matikozyan’s clock ran down for 90 minutes to zero. Neither player was there, and of course there was no Arbiter to make a ruling.

Now let’s bring in the key Kavutskiy quote: “I agreed to play the game with Andranik at his home in the early morning to make things more convenient to him.” So there it is, favoritism pure and simple: “make things more convenient for him”. Let’s quote the FIDE handbook again:

“Tournaments that make changes to favor one or more players … “

I understand there was a family emergency, but everyone has family emergencies, everyone has troubles—but if you can’t play in the tournament, don’t play in the tournament! And if you’re the organizer of the tournament, don’t make secret deals for a game to be played in someone’s house!

I told Konstantin, in my reply to his comment that I ‘seemingly accused him of cheating’ that “if I accuse you of cheating, you will know it.” So this is for you, Konstantin: I am not accusing you of cheating in the sense of throwing a game. But you did violate FIDE rules. I’ll put this in bold: Konstantin Kavuktskiy, your game in Metro 12 against Matikozyan was illegal. Your statement in your second post, “Yes it was played offsite, but it was a completely legal” is false, but nonetheless the “offsite” part is helpful to my case, as it clearly shows violation of the relevant FIDE rule.

In short, with Kavutskiy’s comments, the case for Ethics Violations against Ankit Gupta is secure: no International Arbiter, appalling conditions, favoritism to one player, etc.

Finally, for me personally I will be looking for non-Ankit/Randy tournaments to play in, for example the World Open if I can get funding—then on to Croatia!

Having just turned sixty, I was glad to feel back on track to win the Grandmaster title this year by taking the World Senior Championship in Croatia, November 11-24, 2013. There is only one problem: funding. I have created a “Go Fund Me” website and I am hoping my friends, both local and online will contribute. I am certain I can win—if I can just get there!

Going back to the Pasadena tournament, since as mentioned, the “nerve shredding last round” game is going in Rank and File, I wondered which of my other wins would be good for the blog.

Finally I chose the following “professional” win, which shows how experience tells: understanding key positions can take you from the opening almost all the way to victory—and then if you see the tactics, as I do here—everything looks very easy!

Taylor, Timothy – Mapacpac, Willy
Pasadena Chess Club Championship 2013
Slav-Grünfeld Hybrid

1.d4 d5

In this game my opponent sets up a strange hybrid by starting with the Slav and then adding the Grünfeld, two openings that certainly don’t mesh very well. The Slav player wants his KB on e7 or d6 where it has activity—but finds this piece biting on granite from its Grünfeld station at g7. The Grünfeld player wants to blow up White’s center with … c5–-and so activate the fianchettoed B—but instead finds his own c pawn inert on c6, due to the Slav set up. I don’t really know why people play this way, but I do know I’ve run into it plenty of times—so in this game, I didn’t need good preparation, just good memory and understanding.

In one of my first closed International tournaments, I ran into this same curious hybrid from the Grünfeld move order. 1… Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0–0 6.Rc1 Now instead of the most common, logical and I think objectively best 6… c5, which is consistent with Grünfeld play, my IM opponent threw in the Slav monkey wrench, and so left himself with a dead KB that, as one sees, will be later overwhelmed by my knight pair. 6…c6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.Qb3 Qb6 9.cxd5 (Eliminating counterplay—see a similar plan in the main game) Qxb3 10.axb3 cxd5 11.Ne5 Be6 12.Nb5 Na6 13.Be2 Ne4 14.f3 g5 15.Bg3 Nxg3 16.hxg3 Rfc8 17.Kd2 Rxc1 18.Rxc1 Kf8 19.Nd3 Bd7 20.Nc7 The White Ns are alarming, but neither Black B ever gets any activity. 20…Nxc7 21.Rxc7 Bc8 22.f4 Ke8 23.Bh5 Rb8 24.fxg5 Bf5 25.Nf4 Kd8 26.Rc1 e6 27.Bxf7 Kd7 28.g4 Bxg4 29.Rh1 Ke7 30.Bh5 Bf5 31.Be2 e5 32.Nxd5+ Kd6 33.Nf6 exd4 34.exd4 Rf8 35.Bd3 Bg6 36.Rf1 a5 37.Rf3 b6 38.Nxh7 Rxf3 39.gxf3 Bxh7 Black finally gets rid of the last N, but it’s too late, as the ending is won for White. 40.Bxh7 Bxd4 41.f4 Bxb2 42.Bd3 Kc5 43.Ke3 b5 44.Ke4 a4 45.bxa4 bxa4 46.Kf5 a3 47.Bb1 Kd6 48.Kg6 Ke7 49.f5 Kf8 50.Ba2 Bd4 51.f6 Be3 52.Kf5 Bd2 53.g6 Bh6 54.Kg4 Bg7 55.fxg7+ Kxg7 56.Kg5 Kh8 57.Bd5 Kg7 58.Bc4 a2 59.Bxa2 Kh8 60.Bb1 Kg7 61.Kh5 1–0 Taylor, T – Pribyl, J/Eerbeek 1978

2.c4 c6

The popular Slav Defense—so far so good.

3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3

4.e3 is also possible, when after the hybridizing 4…g6 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Nf3 Nc6 we have transposed to Game 52 from my book Beating the King’s Indian and Grünfeld, which continued 7.Qb3 Bg7 8.Bd3 0–0 9.0–0 b6 10.Bd2 Bg4 11.Qa4 Bxf3 12.Qxc6 Bg4 13.Rac1 Bd7 14.Qb7 Rb8 15.Qa6 Ra8 16.Rc2 Qb8 17.h3 e5 18.Nb5 Bxb5 19.Bxb5 exd4 20.Bc6 dxe3 21.Bxe3 Qc7 22.Rfc1 Rad8 23.Bxd5 Qe5 24.Bf3 Nd5 25.Bxd5 Rxd5 26.Qxa7 Rfd8 27.Rc8 Qxb2 28.Rxd8+ Rxd8 29.Qxb6 Ra8 30.a4 Qa3 31.Rc4 Be5 32.g3 h5 33.Qc6 and White won after a few time pressure moves in Taylor, T – Hermansen, R/Los Angeles 2005.

4…g6

rnbqkb1r/pp2pp1p/2p2np1/3p4/2PP4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq – 0 5

But what is this? Here comes the hybrid! Any of the three main moves (4… dxc4, 4… e6 or 4… a6) are preferable.

5.Bf4

While 5.e3, similar to Taylor-Hermansen given above, probably gives a slight advantage, the text—developing the WQB outside the pawn chain—is sharper and objectively best.

5… Bg7

Black could also take a pawn here, but as in many Queen’s Gambit positions, it doesn’t help him that much. 5…dxc4 6.e3 b5 7.a4 b4 8.Na2 Ba6 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.0–0 Qa5 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Bg7 13.Qe1 c5 14.dxc5 Qxc5 15.Bd4 Qc7 16.Nxb4 Bb7 17.Rc1 0–0 18.Bxc4 Qd7 19.Bb5 Qe6 20.Nd3 Rfc8 21.Rxc8+ Rxc8 22.Bxa7 Nd7 23.Qe2 Ne5 24.Nc5 Rxc5 25.Bxc5 Nf3+ 26.gxf3 Qf5 27.f4 Qd5 28.f3 Qxc5 29.Rd1 Bf6 30.Kg2 g5 31.fxg5 Bxg5 32.Kh1 h6 33.e4 Kh7 34.Qc4 Qxc4 35.Bxc4 f5 36.Bd5 Bc8 37.exf5 Bxf5 38.Be4 1–0 Uhlmann, W – Fairhurst, W/Munich 1958.

Also the Chebenenko style 5…a6 seems to only give Black a weakness in this particular position: 6.e3 Bg7 7.Qb3 0–0 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Bxb8 Rxb8 10.Bxa6! Qd6 11.Be2 Bg4 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 e6 14.0–0 h5 15.Rfc1 g5 16.Nb5 Qb6 17.a4 g4 18.hxg4 hxg4 19.Be2 Bh6 20.g3 Qd8 21.Kg2 Kg7 22.Qd1 Rg8 23.Bxg4 Kh7 24.Qd3+ Rg6 25.Bf3 Qg8 26.Rc7 Kh8 27.Nd6 Rf8 28.Rxb7 Qh7 29.Qc3 Ng4 30.Bxg4 Rxg4 31.Rh1 Kg8 32.a5 Qg6 33.a6 f5 34.Qd3 Bxe3 35.Qxe3 f4 36.Qf3 Rg5 37.a7 Qc2 38.Qxf4 Rxf4 39.a8Q+ Rf8 40.Qxf8+ Kxf8 41.Rh8+ Rg8 42.Rf7# 1–0 Adly, A – Cossa, P/Maputo 2011

6.e3 Nbd7

In the following game Black gives up the center and tries to draw, but “tries” is the operative word! 6…0–0 7.h3 Nbd7 8.Rc1 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nb6 10.Bb3 Nbd5 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.Bh2 e6 13.0–0 Ne7 14.Ne5 Kh8 15.Qc2 Nf5 16.Rfd1 f6 17.Nf3 Ne7 18.e4 Bh6 19.Rb1 Bd7 20.Bd6 Re8 21.h4 Qa5 22.Qc5 Qd8 23.Re1 b6 24.Qc3 Bg7 25.Rbd1 a5 26.a4 Rc8 27.Qe3 Ng8 28.e5 f5 29.Ng5 Nh6 30.Qf4 Kg8 31.Re3 Nf7 32.Nxf7 Kxf7 33.h5 Rg8 34.Rh3 Bf8 35.hxg6+ hxg6 36.Rh7+ Rg7 37.Rh8 Rg8 38.Rxg8 Kxg8 39.Rd3 Bxd6 40.Qh6!! A pretty final attack: the BK is defenseless. 40…Bf8 41.Qxg6+ 1–0 Nielsen, P – Schwalfenberg, J/Germany 2009

7.cxd5!

By fixing the center, I deprive Black of what little counterplay he had—now both … c5 and … dc4 are impossible. One recalls that I used this same strategy to beat IM Pribyl about thirty-five years ago—and the important thing is this: I remembered the ideas of that game.

7…cxd5 8.Bd3 Nh5 9.Bg5 Nb6 10.0–0 0–0 11.Rc1 Bd7 12.h3

r2q1rk1/pp1bppbp/1n4p1/3p2Bn/3P4/2NBPN1P/PP3PP1/2RQ1RK1 b – - 0 12

Just as in Taylor-Pribyl, one can easily see that both Black Bs are ineffective, and thus White’s advantage is clear.

12…Bc6

The variation 12…h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.Nxg5! winning shows just how difficult Black’s game is.

13.b4 a6 14.a4 Nf6 15.Ne5 e6 16.a5 Nc8 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Na4

Now I switch the play to the Queenside, where Black has fixed targets.

18…Ne7 19.Nc5 h6

Not 19…Qc8 20.Qf3, when Black has skewered knights!

20.Bf4 Nd7

There is already no defense to the a pawn, as 20…Qc8 fails to 21.Qe2.

21.Nxa6 e5 22.dxe5 Nxe5 23.Be2 g5 24.Bh2 Qd6 25.Nc5 N7g6

r4rk1/5pb1/2pq2np/P1Npn1p1/1P6/4P2P/4BPPB/2RQ1RK1 w – - 0 26

With an extra pawn and an excellent position, I find a tactic to finish the game. Evidently the brain is working!

26.f4! gxf4

Or 26…Nd7 27.fxg5 Qe7 28.Nxd7 Qxd7 29.Bg4 Qe7 30.Qb3 Qxg5 31.Rf5 Qe7 32.Rxc6 with a massacre.

27.exf4 Nd7 28.Nxd7 Qxd7 29.f5 Nh4 30.f6!

The point of the maneuver begun with 26.f4: Black’s KB is shut out of play and the game is essentially over.

30…Bh8 31.Qd2 Rfe8

No better is 31…Kh7 32.Qc2+ Ng6 33.Qxc6

32.Bd3 Qe6 33.Rce1

White wins major material or mates. Experience tells!

Meanwhile, I think the Slav and Grünfeld should get a divorce!

1–0

One more note on the World Senior: early funding will get me to the US Senior May 28-June 2, which will be an excellent warm-up for the international event—see my wish list. I’m counting on you, readers and friends!

As my readers may recall from my last blog, I have been laid up for about four months. I’m gradually recovering, though still far from 100%. Nonetheless, it was time to get back to chess! I started playing in the Pasadena Chess Club Championship, and for my first weekender since the accident, I chose the Western Class in Agoura Hills, March 8-10. Since income has been poor since the accident (make that virtually nonexistent) I had a small problem: no food money for the tournament. Fortunately my daughter in New York agreed to send me $20. She used Chase Quick Pay as she has done before, to my bank account in Ohio which is still active: First Merit Bank. All I then had to do was go to Ralph’s, buy a Coke, get some cash back with my debit card, and I would be good to go for Agoura. This system had worked perfectly many times before.

My daughter sent the money. The money showed up online in my First Merit Bank account about a week before the tournament. I decided to wait until the day of the tournament to withdraw, for fear I would spend some in advance, so I kept it “safe” in the bank.

Now this is a joint account. My wife Liz got some kind of garbled message from First Merit Bank, and immediately checked our account online: the money was gone! Not just the $20, but the 47 cents we had in there as well! And the account was closed! She called me in a panic (this was March 5) knowing I was counting on this money for the tournament.

It was too late in the day to call the banker I’ve always dealt with at First Merit, the courteous and professional Diane Herzog, so I called the information number and reached a fellow named Israel.

I jumped through all the ID hoops and then he asked, “How may I put you first today?” I asked, “What happened to my twenty dollars?” He punched some keys and said my account had been closed for “inactivity” and that I had been charged a fee for $20!!

I had never heard of such a thing. Anyway, Israel said that if the account is not used for 90 days, it is closed and a $20 fee is charged. I pointed out that I had been in and out of the hospital, and there had been no activity since September. Therefore, if that rule existed, which I had never heard of, nor had I been informed of it, but even if it existed, then the account would have been closed in December. However, not only was it still open in March, it was working fine and showing a balance of $20.47 on March 4!

Israel said, “There’s nothing I can do.”
I said, “Get me a supervisor!”
Israel, showing profound customer service skills, hung up.

I called back; waited on hold; jumped through ID hoops, got a different customer service person, who also wanted to “put me first”—I asked for a supervisor right away, and she connected me to one Sean Bogden.

I explained the situation to good old Sean, who was acting very folksy and friendly. Then he looked up the account. In a very frosty voice, he said they were closing the account, and … “There was nothing he could do!” So I attempted to explain the situation, injury, daughter’s money, chess tournament, etc. And good old Sean, back to folksy, said there was nothing he could do about the account being closed, but that he would make an exception and mail me a check for $20 (it wasn’t until later that I recalled he hadn’t mentioned the 47 cents we already had in there).

So anyway, I was worn out by hanging on the phone for an hour through all this nonsense, and I said, “OK.”

Now I don’t think of OK as fighting words—fighting initials?—but it sure pissed Sean off! The true Sean exploded! He started to yell (by the way, First Merit says they tape their calls, this would be a great one for YouTube if I can get it—I’ll certainly try to subpoena it if the case comes to trial) so incensed was he. “You don’t even thank me! I don’t have to do this. I’m better than all the other bankers! Now I’m going to keep the money!”

I drily asked Sean if he was a thief now. Good old Sean said he was just kidding, and asked for my address. I said, “It’s the same address as I have on my account.” Mad Sean came back and demanded my address like I was the thief. I spelled out the address: same one as on my account. He was disappointed, but said he would mail the check tomorrow (that would have been March 6th) and I said, “OK.”

Sean hung up.

Now Ohio to California, first class mail, that should be only two to three days; the check should have reached me before the tournament. No such luck. I had to make a tough tournament comeback without even twenty bucks of food money! The tournament didn’t go well.

The check didn’t come. I gave it until March 14, nine days after calling Sean, well past any reasonable time for mail delivery, and called First Merit again. I got Sarah, ext. 3038 (she wouldn’t give her last name). I told her I believed Sean had pocketed my $20 and (prepared this time) I also demanded my 47 cents! I’m a tough customer! Sarah said she would have to consult with her superiors and would call me back tomorrow, which was March 15.

Sarah did in fact call me back. She said that Sean had sent the check, but it must have been “lost in the mail.” As a teacher, I know well that “dog ate my homework” excuse, but I let it slide.

Sara X3038 said she would personally mail me a check for $20.47 this same day. I made her repeat it. Yes, she was going to mail me a check for $20.47 on this day, Friday, March 15.

“OK,” I said.

I didn’t believe her.

Needless to say, as of now, March 25, ten days after she allegedly mailed the check, I have not received it, though in other respects my mail delivery is completely normal. They never lose my phone bill!

Now anyone who has followed banking for the past few years knows about the culture of theft in that institution. I would recommend the following excellent Rolling Stone article:

“Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

The bank has defrauded everyone from investors and insurers to homeowners and the unemployed. So why does the government keep bailing it out?”

A good question!

So the theft of $20 seems insignificant compared to the million dollar frauds of Bank of America.

But there’s one thing very interesting about my case. First you have good old Sean Bogden. I don’t know with 100% surety, but it appears he, incensed by my missing “thank you” simply put my twenty in his pocket, or however one steals in this electronic age.

Sarah is a little different though. She “consulted her superiors” and then she lied. Why? Again, while one can’t know 100%, it appears that First Merit Bank has its own culture of theft, and they were backing up Sean. No doubt they felt I would finally just let go and let him keep my twenty.

But, with all the other things going on, I nonetheless—as this section of my blog states—wish to stand up for myself.

Having gone through this with Dell before, it’s time for the certified letter to First Merit’s CEO, one Paul G. Greig, and ultimately sue in Small Claims court for not only the twenty but the affect at the tournament and time lost ever since.

It’s appalling that the bank people lie while their own robots say they are taping the calls! Apparently they have no fear of consequences.

All I can say is, First Merit Bank stole my money, which was, making it worse, my daughter’s money. How low can a bank go?

Next up, certified letter to Paul G. Greig!

Oh wait! There is a PS of sorts to this: I called my friend at the bank, Diane Herzog, hoping that in her efficient and courteous way, she could solve the problem. I have her direct number. I called, and a different voice answered. I asked for Diane Herzog. The new voice said, “Diane Herzog is no longer with the company.”

Efficient, courteous, a good people person like Diane? I can only guess that she was fired for those very qualities: she was an old school kind of person who would never fit into the culture of theft.

On the last day (November 25th) of the recent American Open, I fell on the tennis courts while watching my two boys. The result of this fall was a fractured skull as well as a second fracture of a lower vertebra in my back. Furthermore I had bleeding in my brain, causing absolutely off the chart pain.

I spent three days in the hospital (UC Irvine) and then had to return to the hospital for two more days following being given the wrong medicine by my dubious HealthNet doctor.

Since the last hospital stay (Dec. 1-2) recovery has been glacial at best. I am in near constant pain and have considerable difficulty walking, or sitting for that matter. I am nowhere near playing chess, and even studying has proved out of reach so far.

However, there are small encouraging signs (originally ten feet was my absolute maximum walking distance, today I walked two blocks, if rather slowly) and I hope to eventually gain a full recovery.

I would like to thank all the people who have helped (you know who you are!) during this difficult period.

To me, “darkness” was the operative word—but to the TD that I rushed over to, “near” was more important. I asked if we could stop the clocks, and he said with insouciant calm that I had to keep playing, as “You can still make out the pieces.” So much for concern over playing conditions! After all, the huge entry fees had already been collected!

There were problems with the lighting too at the First Auburn Power Open—but there all similarities with my World Open experience ended. TD Arthur Braden, Power Mansion host Albert Lee, and especially chief organizer Brian Morris, really cared about the players’ welfare, and did everything they could to promote good chess.

When Six time US Champion Walter Browne and I (on boards one and two in the first round) both complained about the lighting, Albert Lee and a helper managed to hang a light right over our board so we could see. When I was playing John Barnard in round two (see game below) a special little Victorian light was placed by my board to give some much needed illumination.

Next year, I am sure, the lighting problems will be fixed in advance—but what impressed me so much in this maiden effort was despite all the usual first time problems, Brian and his crew never said, “We can’t do anything” or “We don’t care.” They listened to the players and did whatever they could to help.

I will absolutely be coming back next year!

Here are my three wins from the event, with light comments.

Due to White’s unfortunate fifth move (of course 5.Bg5 is correct) I was able to reach a Queen’s Gambit Accepted with an extra tempo (the White KB moved twice) and this gave me marginally the better of it right out of the opening. The key line was that the possible 13.e5 fails to Bc5! 14.Be3 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Ba4! and the board clears in Black’s favor.

After that it was just a case of nursing a small plus in the queenless middlegame (as long as I’m not getting mated then White’s pawns are weak) and so I was able to keep the pressure on until White blundered on move 38. Instead of this move (which lost a piece) White could have played 38.Rg1 Rd5 39.Rhg3 Kxf6, but after that White’s three remaining pawns are all pretty much stuck on the same color as his bishop, and thus are virtually indefensible (I love this paradox, that so confuses lower rated players!). So even without the blunder I would still probably have won, though in many more moves.

Here I used an unusual near transposition from the Two Knights Defense to the Breyer Variation of the Ruy Lopez. I had an excellent position when I spotted an interesting idea: a deflecting sacrifice! Regular readers will recall that I carried out one of these (though not in time for my Pawn Sacrifice book!) in a recent La Palma chess club event, and so won the Best Game prize from that event.

Here again the idea was to lure the WQ far away from the main battle, and so I played 19… Rae8! planning to offer the c pawn. My opponent plunged ahead, eagerly capturing the pawn—but by the time his queen returned to play ten moves later, the “extra pawn” had been lost and his position was in ruins.

At the end I was able to sac a rook on move 37 to finish the game in style—though my opponent did insist on playing on until one move from mate!

I questioned the USCF President before the game as to why there had been no response to my blog and numerous emails about Metro 12 (the tournament that directed itself, and quite badly too!). Ms. Haring politely promised that US Chess would indeed make some sort of (belated) response—but as nice as my opponent was, I’m not holding my breath for this response!

As for the game, it was quite easy: I simply followed my experience with this line, and my recommendations in Beating the King’s Indian and Grunfeld, and got an overwhelming position right out of the opening—though I must modestly note the decisive sacrifice 16.Nxe7+! had a certain flair.

And now here is one stylish win from my wife Liz. Yes, Liz was able to play in this tournament as well (we usually can never manage to play in the same event as babysitters are too expensive) because Brian and his family, with great generosity, watched the boys while we played. Now that is a rare organizer!

Liz nursed a plus-equals space grind after crossing the meridian with 12.c5! and finally gained a solid endgame edge with her N maneuver to d6, when it was clear that she had the good knight vs. the bad bishop. Just as she was settling in for a long endgame squeeze, her opponent collapsed under the pressure and blundered on move 31—whereupon Liz finished neatly.

So next year we will be back! But I won’t drive ten hours (an unfortunate decision on my part this year), rather we will be taking the train a day before—and then I will be fighting for first place in the Open and Liz will go hard in the under 2000 section—unless of course she’s over that rating by that time!

As readers of my blog know (see Parking Bureau Commits Violations) I discovered, three months after the fact, that I had been issued a “stealth parking ticket” of which I had been completely unaware. Once I became aware of it, the Parking Bureau attacked in force, and only after I banged on doors till my hands were bloody was I finally able to appeal.

The following letter is that first written appeal, which takes you through our wonderful government’s illegal activities, no due process or right to know the charges against you, we’ll just steal your car and let you guess the reason why!

Timothy Taylor
708 S. Mariposa Ave.
Apt. 108
Los Angeles, CA 90005

May 10, 2012

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contesting citation 1086679005. I got two letters from the Parking Bureau on this, one giving me a hearing date of May 31 in Van Nuys and one offering trial by written declaration. I am choosing the second option, for which I present the following material.

There is an interesting paper trail from this case, and I have attached copies of all of it. Let me take you through the case with the following timeline.

1.December 4, 2011: I did not receive a parking ticket. Not having received a ticket (call me crazy!) I did not contest a ticket!

2.March 3, 2012: I went to the nearest Parking Bureau, on Wilshire two blocks east of Normandie, to protest the fact that I was still getting letters demanding payment on a previous parking ticket I had contested and won. When I told this to the young lady at the window, she looked up my case and found that the ticket was still open, even though I had won in court—and then she dropped the bomb, “Do you know you have another ticket?” I was shocked, needless to say. I told her I had no idea, had received no notification, and asked her what I should do. She gave me two forms to fill out to contest both the one I had already won, and the one I didn’t know I had—wonderful situation, yes? These are enclosed. The copies are hard to read, but you can clearly make out the word “NEVER” in all caps referring to the present ticket, as in I never received it, never knew of it, was never informed of it.

As for the first ticket, that was finally taken off, but as for this one …

3.March 9, 2012: Parking Bureau sends out a form letter, saying I can’t contest ticket as I didn’t contest it within 21 days—COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that I didn’t even know of the ticket until three months later, as I had stated, and still didn’t know what the ticket was for.

I immediately wrote a response on the Bureau’s letter, noting that I contested the ticket the first day I became aware of it (copies of all these are enclosed).

March 16, 2012: I receive another of the same form letters, COMPLETELY IGNORING my previous letter, and saying I can’t appeal because 21 days have passed, even though I appealed immediately once I learned of the ticket.

March 22, 2012: I wrote a careful and legal response to the Parking Bureau in a four page letter listing all the facts of the case (note at this time I still didn’t know what I had been charged with, as that information had never been included in the letters I was receiving). I wrote to Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, to Steve Lopez of the LA Times, and I posted my letter and an account of the struggle thus far on my blog, TimothyTaylorArtist.com. My account attracted great interest, as it turns out many people have been victimized by these “stealth tickets” which seem almost impossible to fight—you don’t know what you’re charged with, but you’re not allowed to contest it!

March 27, 2012: The Parking Bureau sent another letter, which, you guessed it, COMPLETELY IGNORED my four page letter, my previous letters, etc. and threatened to impound my vehicle and deny my car registration. They haven’t stolen my car yet (I park in a garage) but they have carried out the threat to cancel my registration. According to the DMV (see copy) I can’t renew my registration unless I pay this $185 parking ticket (I remind you, at this point, I still didn’t know what the ticket was for).

April 7, 2012: I wrote a follow up letter, sure that it would be ignored, and it was.

However, a few days later, I did receive an undated letter from the city of Los Angeles (see copy) which contains the following astonishing lie: “Despite repeated notices from us, you have not responded” !!!!! NOT RESPONDED! As you see, I have been nothing if not diligent in my responses. Furthermore, while the many letters from the parking bureau ignore the content of my letters, they do acknowledge receiving them, so there is no excuse for this egregious falsehood.

Nonetheless, there was one good thing about this last letter: at long last, for the first and only time, I was informed of what the ticket was for: No parking on Mariposa south of 8th St. I have NEVER even driven on Mariposa south of 8th St., as I will explain a bit later, but first, let me continue the story.

Armed with this information, I took a day off and went to the court off Santa Monica Blvd. where I had previously won against the other ticket. They said they couldn’t do anything, and referred me to the Beverly Hills Courthouse. I went there, and they said they could do nothing but referred me to the original Parking Bureau office where I had discovered the ticket. I went there, and a young man named Blake said there was nothing they could do, but gave me a number to call.

I called the number, and an honest Parking Bureau employee (I found one!) said that he would put it in, and I would be found guilty automatically, but then I would at least have a way to appeal!

I thanked him profusely, and indeed I was immediately found guilty of parking on a street I’ve never even driven on, and so I finally got the chance to appeal, which is what I am doing right now.

So here we are: As noted, I never received any ticket. I am alleged to have parked on Mariposa South of 8th St. I NEVER drive or park there. Why? I pay $95/month to park in the Standard Parking garage, the door of which is one half a block (at Seventh and Normandie) from where I live. I would never chance street parking two blocks away. Furthermore, I never drive or park south of 8th St. since 8th St. is the border between Koreatown, where I live, and the Spanish area below. Nothing against Spanish people, but I don’t speak Spanish, have no business there, and would never even look for parking in that incredibly densely populated area when I have safe parking ½ block away.

As far as I can see, the ticket never existed—it was certainly never placed on my car, and my car was never in the place where the violation allegedly occurred.

Please dismiss this ticket!

Sincerely,

Timothy Taylor

I got quite a quick response to this from one S. Krieger. This “Hearing Examiner” who, I understand in this rigged system, works for the parking bureau, needless to say found me guilty. I’m not going to retype all the pathetic ravings of this parking fool, or parking tool, but I’ll put in the low points. It wasn’t enough for the supercilious S. Krieger to find me guilty of something I never did, but he (or she, we know now that evil comes in two genders!) went the extra mile by embroidering his lies with personal invective!

So the senseless S. Krieger writes: “a complete citation establishes the facts listed upon it” (!!). In other words, a traffic cop can make up anything he wants on a citation, and what he makes up becomes “fact!”

Referring to the fact that I wasn’t aware of the citation for three months, the secret agent S. Krieger states that I “received a notice dated 12/28”—what a secret agent! Apparently, while wearing a trench coat and smoking a cigarette, S. Krieger spotted me receiving this notice … when as I stated under oath, I never received such a notice.

The smarmy S. Krieger goes on to “advise me” to “carefully read further notices!”

Finally, needless to say, SS style S. Krieger finds me guilty, dismissing my entire four page letter above full of compelling evidence with the single line that my case is “supported only by thinly veiled racist comments.”

I hit the roof at this one!! Racist? The scum S. Krieger is screwing me over on a parking ticket but takes time to call me a racist which I most assuredly am not! My good chess friend Carlos Garcia and my occasional employer Danny Alvira would be quite surprised to hear that! Apparently my line in my letter that I have “nothing against Spanish people” means, in S. Krieger’s opposite land, that I am a racist!

So the slimy S. Krieger ordered me to pay the full $185.

Part II – Proof and Resolution

The only good thing about the S. Krieger sleaze fest was that there are instructions after the letter to appeal to a regular (that is, not parking) court and of course I did so; I paid my $25.00 and filed at the Beverly Hills Courthouse, and got a hearing date of July 10, 2012 at the West Los Angeles Court on Purdue St.

This presented a problem. The case had gone on so long now that my car registration was due in June and the hearing—where I was sure to be exonerated—was in July! To register the car in a timely manner would require me to pay the $185 for something I had never done!

In this way the Parking Bureau essentially extorts motorists to pay up.

In my case, my wife and I were having financial difficulties at this time, and paying registration plus insurance plus fake ticket was all too much. So we were forced to sell the car, and our family of four has been on the bus ever since. The Parking Bureau is not completely responsible for this, but they certainly played a significant role.

Finally the big day comes: I will be heard in court! I take the long bus ride: the 720 from Koreatown to Santa Monica Blvd, then the 704 to Barrington, from where I will walk back up to Purdue. I go over and over my case, convinced it is airtight. I look over slanted S. Krieger’s letter one more time, and notice that a copy of the original parking ticket is attached. I had glanced at this before, but having plenty of time on the bus, I decided to read it closely—and there was proof, right on the original ticket, which I never received.

I noticed first that this was a regular LAPD ticket, not a brownshirt ticket. Then I saw the license plate was mine, but knowing I had never parked there, I knew that was wrong, and had long suspected some kind of driveaway situation. And then, there it was: finally proof.

I know the first thing city cops look at is the registration date, in the hopes of catching someone with an expired registration, which is an expensive ticket—I know, I got one (a legitimate ticket in that case, though still painful) and right there, clearly written on the original ticket, was the registration renewal date: 4/12. That is, April 2012.

But my registration date was June 2012.

Suddenly everything fell into place. The cop pulls up behind a car, checks the registration—and the driver of the car, knowing he’s parked illegally, peels out. The cop quick writes the license plate, and gets one or more numbers wrong. Voila! My nightmare commences.

Now, a few blocks from the courthouse, I finally had the proof of what I always knew: it wasn’t my car.

I mentally added this new and convincing wrinkle to my case, and sat down in the courthouse to wait—a long wait. Moving violations were done before parking, so it was about three hours before the former were done.

The judge then took a recess to review the parking appeals.

We were then called back, and the judge called my name first. And so, on July 10, 2012, more than eight months after the stealth ticket was issued, the issue was resolved: in thirty seconds.

I can remember what the judge said, and my responses, almost verbatim, as it was all so short. I never had to present my case, as it turns out.

I wrote the words down right after, and just now said them aloud while watching the sweep second hand of my clock—yes, just about half a minute.

Here is the exchange:

Judge: I have reviewed your case, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that you ever received this ticket, or that the ticket was meant for you. Therefore I am reversing the verdict.

Me: Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge: Have you paid any fees?

Me: Yes, I have, $25,00 filing fee to contest the case.

Judge: That money will be returned to you—Next!

Thirty seconds to end months of hell. And what if, during the bogus ticket time, my car had been stolen by the city? What recourse would I have had then?

Easy answer: nothing.

But in this case, despite months of aggravation, constant writing and copying of letters, anxiety over the possibility my car would be towed, spurious claims by S. Krieger—justice finally prevailed: It was over.

I kicked S. Krieger’s butt! I won! The judge was as good as her word, and I got my twenty-five dollars back!

I felt some small satisfaction—but if you think the story ends here, you don’t live in L.A.

Part III: Horror

There is a certain kind of seventies horror film that starts like this: a phone rings, and a girl sleepily reaches for it in the early morning hours. A voice on the phone invites her on an adventure to a mysterious island, or a haunted chateau—the girl is excited and agrees and goes on the adventure—

Which turns out to be pure horror, as all her friends and co-adventurers are killed, and she finally staggers back home, blood stained and weary, and collapses on her bed—but that’s not the end of the film!

After a blackout, one hears the sound of a phone ringing, then in gray light, the girl sleepily reaches for it—and the same unseen voice invites her to the same mysterious adventure …

Roll credits, as one wonders if the whole main story of the movie, the horror, was all a nightmare …

So there I was, minding my own business, planning on writing a victory parking blog, when … cue sinister music … I received in the mail a notice from the Parking Bureau. I opened it with trepidation. It was dated, Aug. 8, 2012, that is, over a month past my court date when I was completely vindicated.

You can see it below, but let me tell you what I saw first—in blood red capital letters: FINAL WARNING.

An unspeakable sense of Poe like horror descended on me but just to make sure, I checked the original ticket. It was the same citation number.

For some bizarre insanity known only to the Parking Bureau, it was the same ticket, numerically, but had a different amount–$80.00, not $185—but it ordered me to pay this $80 immediately, or face dire consequences.

I know now the horror will always be with me … I knew what I had to do, and like a zombie, I did it. I made copies. I wrote my defense, noting that I had already been cleared of this trash ticket.

I went to the Parking Bureau. The same nice girl, Berenice (I’m going to know all these people by name eventually) told me I had to fill out a form to contest it—and I did, and I filed it then and there.

You don’t have to know your horror movies to know what will happen next; I will protest fruitlessly. Double jeopardy, anyone?

Finally S. Krieger or one of his ilk will find me guilty again of what I have already been cleared of doing.

I will pay $25.00, appeal and go to court.

The judge will throw the case out in exasperation in thirty seconds, citing double jeopardy.

I’ll get my $25.00 back and then …

One day in the future, another letter will come, blood red and all caps …

Opening preparation was a key part of my four wins, but never so clearly as in the crucial last round, where I played the highest rated of my opponents, young Yusheng Xia.

How does one prepare for an opponent? First, I made a database of all Xia’s Black games, since I knew I was going to be White. I discovered something that made preparation easy: he had no reserve openings. As I wrote some years ago in my book True Combat, in the chapter Opening Preparation, “One simply can’t repeat openings that allow this type of home preparation,” and I go on to say that reserve openings are essential.

Unfortunately for my opponent, he consistently played a fixed variation that one could prepare even far into the ending. This problem in his repertoire stood out immediately: whenever his opponent played the Queen’s Gambit, Xia always answered with the Slav Defense. Whenever his opponent opened with the English Opening, 1.c4, Xia always answered 1… c6, maintaining the possibility of transposing to the Slav.

When the opponent stayed in English/Réti territory, Xia played a Slav type line that is actually extremely difficult to defend: I knew that Smyslov had lost with Black twice in this variation! The game below really caught my eye.

Nilsson,M- Xia,Y
Los Angeles 2012

1.c4 c6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 b6 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.d3 Nc6 9.Nc3 e5 10.0–0 Be7 11.Bg5 Be6 12.Nd2 Rd8 13.Nb5 0–0 14.Nb3 ½–½

Now this was not a fighting game, to put it mildly, and White made no attempt to win. However, the renowned endgame virtuoso Smyslov lost the ending after 7.Qxb6 to Portisch. I studied the subsequent play thoroughly over the week preceding the game, and concluded that White has excellent winning chances due to the long term weakness of the doubled b pawns. In particular, the WK should ultimately aim for the b5 square.

I wondered if my opponent would repeat this line, where Black volunteers to get doubled isolated pawns, and so I checked out the other Smyslov loss: here the late World Champion defended his b pawn with … Qc8, but the badly placed BQ gave White an easy initiative, and Smyslov was defeated by Barcza, a player normally well below his class.

My final question to myself was, would my opponent—seeing me play 1.c4, not a usual move for me—deviate on the very first move, with the perfectly reasonable 1… e5 for example?

There was only one way to find out.

Taylor, Timothy – Xia, Yusheng
Réti Opening
San Gabriel Valley Championship
Pasadena 2012

1.c4!

After an unusually long think, my opponent finally played his normal move.

1… c6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2

This position is usually reached by the order 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2, which it’s why it’s generally referred to as a Réti Opening.

I have had this position many times as Black, and I have never once played what my opponent does here: I have always used Capablanca’s 4… Bg4, which I think is objectively best. Then White gets nothing with an early central exchange, e.g. 5.cxd5 Bxf3! 6.Bxf3 cxd5 and White has zilch as 7.Qb3 is met by Qd7, and White no longer has a Ne5 attack—indeed, White scores less than 50% from this position.

4… Bf5

Xia follows his normal system—but while this may not be an outright mistake, Black’s defense is extremely difficult. Furthermore, he had now walked straight into my ambush: this was the exact position that I had been thoroughly studying for a week!

5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3

rn1qkb1r/pp2pppp/5n2/3p1b2/8/1Q3NP1/PP1PPPBP/RNB1K2R b KQkq – 0 6

As noted above, going into the endgame with 6… Qb6 as Xia did before transposes to the Portisch – Smyslov debacle below, and this was my main study text. One clearly sees the main idea of bringing the WK to b5, where it ultimately lays waste to the weak Black queenside pawns. I remember the game made a great impression on me when I first saw it—I believe it was in Svetozar Gligoric’s Game of the Month column in Chess Life, back when Chess Life featured world class games annotated by world class players! 6…Qb6 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.d3 Nc6 9.Nc3 e6 10.Nb5 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Ke7 12.Nfd4 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Bg6 14.f4 h6 15.a3 Rhc8 16.Rac1 Bh7 17.Bh3 Nd7 18.Rc3 Nxd4 19.Nxd4 Rxc3 20.Kxc3 Rc8+ 21.Kd2 Bg8 22.Rc1 Rxc1 23.Kxc1 f6 24.Kd2 Bf7 25.Bg2 g6 26.Nb5 Nb8 27.e4 dxe4 28.Bxe4 Nc6 29.Kc3 e5 30.fxe5 fxe5 31.a4 Kd7 32.Na3 g5 33.Nc4 Bxc4 34.Kxc4 Kd6 35.Kb5! Kc7 36.Bxc6! bxc6+ 37.Ka6! (Zugswang!) g4 38.b3 c5 39.Kb5 Kb7 40.a5 bxa5 41.Kxc5 1–0 Portisch,L-Smyslov,V/Wijk aan Zee 1972.

Smelling a large rat, my opponent avoids the main line of my preparation with …

7… Qc8

But is unaware that I have studied this line too, for Smyslov also lost after this defense!

7.Nc3 e6 8.d3 Nc6 9.Bf4 Be7 10.0–0 0–0 11.Rac1

r1q2rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/3p1b2/5B2/1QNP1NP1/PP2PPBP/2R2RK1 b – - 0 11

I think it’s important to study with books as well as computers; the former might actually include explanations! The main text that I used to study the opening was Nigel Davies’ excellent book, “The Dynamic Réti.” About this position he comments, “Despite having played a series of natural, classical moves, this position is far from easy for Black”—and I couldn’t agree more! Furthermore, Mr. Fritz already evaluates the position as clear advantage to White with an average plus of about .80, or nearly a pawn up.

Why is Black in such difficulties? It isn’t hard to see: first of all, the WQR is smiling down the open file at the poorly placed BQ—and said queen blocks the connection of Black’s rooks. White is ready for N raids to b5 or e5. Furthermore, a consequence of the doubtful 4… Bf5 is that said B is completely ineffective, running into the pawn at d3—and is easily subject to attack by a well timed Nd4 or e4.

11… Rd8

Smyslov tried to get his Q off the open file—and lost as follows: 11…Qd7 12.e4! dxe4 13.dxe4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Bxe4 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.Bxe4 (White has excellent positional compensation for the pawn) Nc6 17.Rfd1 Qc8 18.Qa4 Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Qxd8 20.Bxc6 bxc6 21.Qxc6 (White recovers the pawn while retaining his positional plus) h6 22.Be5 Bg5 23.Rc4 Qd1+ 24.Kg2 Rd8 25.Qf3 Qxf3+ 26.Kxf3 Bf6 27.Bxf6 gxf6 28.Ke3 (White has transformed the positional advantage into an ending that is too tough even for the World Champion—note the centralized WK and queenside majority) Rd5 29.b4 Kg7 30.a4 e5 31.b5 Rd1 32.Rc7 a6 33.bxa6 Rd4 34.a7 Rxa4 35.Kd3 f5 36.Kc3 Kf6 37.Kb3 Ra1 38.Kb4 Kg5 39.Kb5 Kh5 40.Kb6 1–0 Barcza,G-Smyslov,V/Moscow 1956

12.Nb5

Black can be relieved that I am at the end of my preparation, but it’s already too late: to get this difficult a position to start with is something like starting a football game 20 points down!

12… Qd7 13.Nbd4

r2r2k1/pp1qbppp/2n1pn2/3p1b2/3N1B2/1Q1P1NP1/PP2PPBP/2R2RK1 b – - 0 13

My original idea at the board was 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.Rc7 which is also strong, but this move is more subtle. Black notes the obvious threat to take his QB and double his pawns—but misses the real threat and so loses a pawn.

13…Bg6?!

Better is 13…Rac8 14.Nxf5 exf5 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.Bxe5 but then White has the two Bs and the better pawn structure.

14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Ne5 Qe8 16.Nxc6

White has won a pawn and retained the better position.

16…Rd7 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Rc6 h6 19.Rfc1 Re8 20.Rc8 e5 21.Bd2 Rxc8 22.Rxc8+ Rd8

23.Rc6

Not a bad move, indeed this is Fritz’s number one pick–but given the fast time control (40/90 then SD/30) I should have been looking for simple technical lines. Therefore, from a practical point of view, best is 23.Rxd8+ Qxd8 24.Qb7 when Black can hardly avoid the exchange of queens, with a possible finish like this: 24…e4 25.d4 Qd7 26.Qxd7 Nxd7 27.Bb4 Bf5 28.Kf1 f6 29.Ke1 Kf7 30.Kd2 Ke6 31.Ke3 h5 32.h4 Nb8 33.Bc5 a5 34.f3 exf3 35.exf3 g6 36.Bf1 and with both Bs in play, White wins easily.

23…Bf5 24.Qc3 e4 25.d4

Intuitively I didn’t trust 25.Bxh6, so I rejected it without analysis—and I was right! Black answers 25…exd3 26.exd3 Bd7! (but not 26…d4 27.Qa5 Bxd3 28.Bg5±) 27.Rxf6 Qxf6 28.Qxf6 gxf6 29.Bxd5 Be6 30.Bc4 Bf5 31.Be3 Bxd3 32.Bxd3 Rxd3 33.Bxa7 Rd2 34.a4 Rxb2 35.a5 Ra2 36.Bb6 Kg7 and Fritz says White is still slightly better, but I’m not sure I believe that—in any case it’s obvious White has lost most of his advantage.

25…Bg4 26.Bf1 Qd7 27.Bf4

Maybe 27.Bxh6 works now, but with time pressure approaching, I was definitely searching for simple paths.

27…Qf5 28.f3 Bh3 29.Bxh3 Qxh3 30.Be5 exf3 31.exf3 Nh7 32.Qa5!

3r2k1/p4ppn/2R4p/Q2pB3/3P4/5PPq/PP5P/6K1 b – - 0 32

White wins Black’s center pawn, as …

32…Re8

32…Rd7 loses to 33.Rc8+ (Black blocked his Q’s defense of this square) 33…Nf8 34.Qb4 Re7 35.Qb8 (As an interesting side note, White can also win by going for the king and pawn ending: 35.Rxf8+ Kxf8 36.Bd6 Qe6 37.Bxe7+ Qxe7 38.Qb8+ Qe8 39.Qxe8+ Kxe8 40.Kf2 etc.) 35…f6 (or 35…Qf5 36.Rxf8+ Kh7 37.Rh8+ Kg6 38.Qb4 Qb1+ 39.Kf2 Qc2+ 40.Ke3 Qc1+ 41.Ke2 Qc2+ 42.Qd2 Qa4 (not 42…Qb1 43.Qd3+) 43.Qd3+ f5 44.g4 and White is a piece up for nothing) 36.Rxf8+ Kh7 37.Rh8+ Kg6 38.Re8 Qe6 (Clearly the only move) 39.Rxe7 Qxe7 40.Qd6 Qe8 41.Qa6! Kh7 42.Qd3+ Kg8 43.Bf4 and again Black has nothing for the piece.

33.Qxd5 Qf5

If 33…Ng5 White can give a pawn up to exchange Queens while retaining an extra button: this is a recurring theme in the position. 34.f4 Ne6 35.Qd7 Rf8 36.d5 Nxf4 37.Qxh3 Nxh3+ 38.Kg2 Ng5 39.h4 Ne4 40.d6 Rd8 41.Kf3 Nd2+ 42.Ke2 f6 (42…Ne4 43.Ke3 Nf6 44.Bxf6 is even easier) 43.Kxd2 fxe5 44.Ke3 Kf7 45.Ke4 Ke6 46.d7+ Kxd7 47.Ra6 Ra8 48.Rg6 Rg8 49.b4 Kc7 50.Kxe5 and White wins easily with the active R and extra pawn.

34.Qe4 Qd7

Another example of the same theme is 34…Qxe4 35.fxe4 Ng5 36.Kf2 and wins: White is always willing to give up one pawn to eliminate Black’s counterplay.

35.Rc7 Qa4 36.h4!

The only dangerous square for the BN is g5; also the WK can now defend himself in Steinitzian fashion rather than being trapped on the back rank.

36…Qxa2 37.Qc2 Qa6 38.Kf2 Nf6 39.Qc6 Qa5 40.Qc3

.08: That’s what was on my clock when I made the time control: eight seconds left!

40…Qa6

.01: That’s what my opponent’s clock said: he made the time control with one second left!

41.Qb3!

Best! White gains time on the board by forcing the BR to a passive square–but this cost me ten minutes of my SD thirty!

41…Rf8

42.Qa3?

I rushed this move and gave Black some defensive chances. The logical follow up to my previous move is 42.Bxf6! with a clean win. Black’s N is eliminated before it gets to the blockading square d5, and Black is tied down to f7. White wins easily after 42…Qxf6 43.Qc4 Qf5 (or 43…a5 44.Rc8) 44.Kg2 etc.

42…Qe6 43.Kg2?!

Too complicated for Sudden Death! Again simplest is 43.Bxf6 Qxf6 44.Qxa7 Qe6 45.Qb7 Rd8 46.d5 Rxd5 47.Qc8+ Qxc8 48.Rxc8+ Kh7 49.b4 Rd2+ 50.Ke3 Rb2 51.Rc4 with a winning R ending.

43…Qf5

43…Nd5 does not save the game for Black, but would force White to use precious moments to find the correct reply. A blind alley is the greedy pawn snatch when Black gets typical Q + N counterplay and can count on a draw: 44.Rxa7? f6 45.Qd6 Ne3+ 46.Kf2 Ng4+ 47.Ke1 Qb3 48.Bf4 Ne3 49.Kf2 (49.Bxe3 Qxe3+ 50.Kd1 Qxf3+) 49…Nf5 50.Qd7 Qc2+ 51.Ke1 Qb1+ 52.Ke2 Qc2+ 53.Kf1 Qd1+ 54.Kg2 Qe2+ 55.Kh3 Qxf3 56.Ra1 (56.Qxf5 Qh1+ 57.Kg4 Qd1+ 58.Kh3 Qh1+) 56…Nxh4 57.Qe6+ Kh8 58.Kxh4 g5+ 59.Kh3 gxf4 60.Qg4 Qxg4+ 61.Kxg4 fxg3 62.Kxg3 Rb8 63.Rd1 Rxb2 64.d5 Rb7 65.d6 Rd7 66.Kf4 Kg7 67.Kf5 Kf7 68.Rd2 Rd8 69.d7 Ke7 70.Rd1 h5 71.Re1+ Kf7 (71…Kxd7 72.Kxf6 Rh8 73.Rh1 h4 74.Rh3 Kd6 75.Kg5 Ke5 76.Rxh4 Rg8+ 77.Kh6 (Correct! 77.Kh5 Kf5 wins for Black!) 77…Kf6 (77…Kf5 78.Ra4 Rg6+ 79.Kh7 Rg1 80.Ra5+ draws) 78.Rf4+ Ke5 79.Rf1) 72.Rd1 h4 73.Kg4 Ke7 74.Kxh4 Rxd7 75.Rxd7+ Kxd7 76.Kg4 Ke6 77.Kf4 draws.

Instead of all this, correct but hard to see is 44.Rb7! 44…f6 (on other moves such as 44…Qc6 45.Qb3 or 44…Rd8 45.g4 White should gradually win but it will be more difficult than in the game due to Black’s strong N which should have been eliminated) 45.Qxa7! and White wins, the point of playing the WR to the b file is that White can still double on the 7th rank, which is impossible with the WR on a7.

44.g4 Qb1 45.Bxf6!

Finally the dangerous minor piece is eliminated, and a clear technical position is reached.

45…gxf6 46.Qc3 Kg7

Or 46…Rb8 47.Rc8+

47.Re7!

5r2/p3Rpk1/5p1p/8/3P2PP/2Q2P2/1P4K1/1q6 b – - 0 47

Eliminates any Black counterplay on the e file.

While Black’s next looks like a blunder, it’s hard to find anything better, e.g. 47…Qd1 48.h5 Rb8 49.b4 Qb1 50.Qc4 Rf8 51.Rxa7 also picks up a second pawn with an easy win.

47…Rb8 48.Rxf7+! Kxf7 49.Qc7+ Ke6

I was hoping for 49…Kg6? 50.h5+ Kg5 51.Qg7+ and mate next.

50.Qxb8 Qc2+ 51.Kg3

White has a clear plan of attack: invade the Black kingside with my K and devour the weak pawns there.

51…Qb1 52.Qb3+ Kd6 53.Qb4+ Kd7 54.Qd2 Qg1+ 55.Kf4 Qh1 56.Qa5

White won after unrecorded time pressure moves, finally reaching this position at approximately move 90.

8/3k4/5Q1K/6P1/3P4/4qP2/8/8 b – - 0 70

White is three pawns up (note that the WK did penetrate and lay waste to the Black kingside!) and Black has no checks, therefore my opponent resigned.

1–0

Surviving time pressure was great—but I was happiest about the fact that my opening preparation gave me a huge lead before the game even began!

​You can contact me through my website.

​Thanks so much.

I did not take the Babu/Dell double cross lightly, and wrote a furious blog in protest.

So what happened? The same Mr. Babu wrote me a short email in which he thanked me no less than three times—after I had just worked him over—and promised to fix the computer. Indeed, it was fixed in record time, Fed Exed back to us, and is working fine.

The reason we have called this new section of the blog, Standing Up for Yourself, is simple: you have to do it, as no one else will. Left to their own devices, the ever growing number of billionaires in the world, like Michael Dell, will simply take everything they can get their hands on, without a thought to the jobs lost to outsourcing, the damage to ordinary people trying to make a living with a computer who suddenly face uncaring “support” jerry rigged a continent away—these billionaires stomp on regular customers in the belief there will always be more suckers …

One has to shout to make these people hear—but as I showed, shout loud enough and they might finally do what they should have done in the first place: do a little customer service. So Dell coughed up $200 to fix my computer. Had they done it the first time, they would have had a grateful and loyal customer. Doing it now just makes me glad it’s over.

But what of our friend Babu? He holds four opinions in two weeks:

1.Company man: Can’t fix it ever if one hour past warranty
2.Nice guy, will fix it one time.
3.Nasty double crosser: hey, I don’t care what I said, we’re not fixing it!
4.Craven tool, thanking the person who smacked him down.

All I could think of was As Wikipedia puts it well, “Doublethink requires its true practitioners to hold contradictory and self-nullifying beliefs simultaneously.”

Exactly what Babu did, presumably at the behest of his superiors in the corporate culture. In short, to maintain your corporate job, one must nullify your own reasoning mind.

And that is too high a price to pay for a paycheck.

But Dell Computers, the absolute nadir of customer service, did the unthinkable: they made a deal with me, that is Isaiah Babu, Executive Customer Support Team (customer rip off team?) made a deal with me—then double crossed me and reneged on the deal.

Let’s back up a bit: as related in my previous post, I own two Dell computers, one I use and one my wife Liz uses. Liz’s computer suddenly stopped working about 13 months after we bought it, that is, about 30 days after the warranty expired. In a non-corporate universe, if someone is a good customer and uses your products regularly, and if one goes down just a short time after the warranty expires, it would just be good business to cut some slack and repair it, thus ensuring customer loyalty.

But not Dell. They have outsourced their customer service to India, and all the Indian corporate slaves I spoke to had one rote line: “If the computer goes down even one hour after the warranty expires, we won’t fix it.”

So after two weeks of frustration, and no computer usage for Liz, I borrowed a line from Ralph Nader’s playbook and started the process of suing in Small Claims court. The first thing you have to do for this is to attempt, in writing, to obtain a resolution. So I wrote a certified letter to CEO Michael Dell, explaining the situation, and stating that I would sue for $1500 for lost computer time.

Enter Corporate Tool Isaiah Babu: he called me and said they would make an exception in my case. They would in fact fix my computer. He stated specifically that this would be a one time thing, and I was fine with that. I specifically asked him, “Will this repair cost us anything?” He said, and I quote, “There will be no cost to you.” He then said he would send packaging by Fed Ex, and we would then pack the computer and send it to their service center, and repair it and return it in about two weeks. He made no conditions about the cause of the problem (I didn’t know what the problem was, but I described the state of the screen exactly as it appeared when I turned it on, that is, no words visible and impossible to use). He simply said again that the computer would be repaired at no cost to us, but if any new problems cropped up after this one time service, we would have to pay.

I agreed to this, and for the first time, a conversation with a Dell employee ended amicably.

The Fed Ex packaging came, and we shipped the computer out a few days ago.

We got a notification from Dell that they had received it and gave a tracking number.

Then, today, Isaiah Babu called again: and reneged on everything. He said they had decided not to repair the computer and they were sending it back. I reminded him of his repeated promise to repair the computer, and he just kept repeating, “I’m sorry, Sir, but we are sending it back.” I reminded him that I had started the Small Claims action, and now would continue, naming him along with Michael Dell, but instead of being a man and owning up to his promises, he turned into the true corporate lying double crossing sleaze that he is, and repeated like a mantra, “I’m sorry, Sir, but we are returning the computer.”

I roared that he was going down, that his head would roll when my lawsuit came through, and like a good corporate slave, trained to throw himself on the sword at Michael Dell’s whim, he said, “Have a nice day, and thank you for choosing Dell,”—and hung up.

This is horrible news in so many ways: Liz has been without a computer for so long, but finally saw hope—it never occurred to us that Dell would double cross us with a deal in place. A computer is practically a necessity in today’s world, and Liz was doing some freelance proofreading which is now extremely difficult as she has to use her old virus ridden machine that barely works. So the cost of Dell’s reneging on their own deal is both personal and professional, all of which of course will be noted in my Small Claims Court filing.

The one silver lining in all this is that when I was about to file the first time, I wasn’t sure of winning in court—but now I’m a dead cert to win. Let me explain: in the first case, Dell is screwing us and engaging in nonsensical business practices, but according to the letter of the warranty, they might prevail. But my feeling was, at least I’ll make them pay a bit. After all, Michael Dell, with a net worth of 15 billion, 12th richest person in the world according to Forbes 2006 (though he may have dropped a few numbers) can afford it. He’s the one who shipped Dell’s customer “dis” – service to India to save a few pennies while refusing to stand by his own products. To quote Wikipedia, “ In 2005, complaints about Dell more than doubled to 1,533, after earnings grew 52% that year.[102]”. Now that’s good business! So what would happen if I had filed earlier? Well, I might have got a sympathetic judge, and I might have won. Then again, Dell might have sent a $500/hr corporate lawyer, and I might have lost. But the lawyer would certainly bill a minimum of four hours, and so, by refusing to pay about $200—which is what some knowledgeable computer people tell me it might cost to fix this, Dell’s own bad business practices and general corporate irresponsibility, would end up costing them $2000! So at least it would cost them ten times what they would have spent if they had done the right thing and made a $200 repair.

But now, thanks to that super sleazy liar and double crosser Isaiah Babu, things are completely different! I have proof that Dell, in the person of Babu, promised to fix the computer “at no cost” and then reneged on the deal. There is not a corporate lawyer in the world who can get them out of this one, without of course bribing the judge, and I doubt they will go that far in such a small case.

So I am going ahead with the Small Claims Court case, suing Michael Dell and his stooge Isaiah Babu for $1500, and I certainly hope they send a corporate lawyer to overbill them another couple of grand. Best case for Dell is they spend $2000 in lawyer’s fees and $1500 to me (instead of doing a $200 repair as they agreed), or they take a $3500 loss for no reason known to a sane person.

However, it could be much worse for the company (and given that Michael Dell is a “devoted Republican” it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy) and that is, my complaint, and thousands like it, will reach a tipping point. People will say, why buy a computer from that sleazy Dell, full of liars like Isaiah Babu, and run by a corporate greedhead like Michael Dell? Why add to Dell’s grotesque fortune?

The tipping point could come as a class action suit, as a simple erosion of sales, as one deal after another simply falling apart because, as people gradual realize, Dell’s corporate culture of deceit cannot be trusted; simply put, they are willing to renege on their own deals.

The funny thing is that Isaiah Babu, loyal corporate slave, is probably going to be fired at the end for this (Michael Dell won’t blame himself!). I wonder if they’ll wish good old Isaiah a nice day as they kick his backside out the door?

I will keep readers posted on further developments as my case against Dell moves forward.

Read Chapter 3 of Dell Saga