MICHIGAN
CHESS ASSOCIATION
Ronald Finegold |
Information compiled by Mark Finegold
Ron Finegold joined the Michigan Chess Association in the late 1950's. His first major success was equal 2nd in the 1958 Michigan Open with 5.5 out of 7, behind former French champion Stephan Popel's perfect score. He was a National Master for a great number of years and is a Life Master.
In 1961, he took clear first with a 5-0 score at the Glass City Open in Toledo, Ohio, where the field of well over 100 players included several masters.
Ron was the 2nd Board prize winner at the 1962 Pan-Am Intercollegiate for Wayne State University's chess team, which finished in third place among several dozen teams at the Philadelphia event.
Earlier in 1962, he took a trip with other Michigan players to the U.S. Open in San Antonio, Texas. In this tournament, which featured many grandmasters such as Benko, R. Byrne, Lombardy, and Bisguier, as well as grandmasters and IM's from Europe and South America, Ron finished 15th with 8 points out of 12. Coincidentally, he had identical 8-point performances in the other two U.S. Opens in which he participated, Ventura (Calif.) 1971 and Dearborn 1992.
Ron played his best-known tournament game at the 1963 Western Open in Bay City. Bobby Fischer, irritated by perceptions of Soviet cheating and poor treatment by international organizers, accepted an invitation to the Western Open. Ron was paired with Bobby in Round Five in what turned out to be Bobby's longest game of the tournament. Fischer finally squeezed out a win in a complex ending (see this game below).
Ron scored first place or equal first in three Motor City Opens. Equal first in the 1971 Flint Open ahead of many masters including Larry Gilden and Eugene Martinovsky. Winner of dozens of USCF-rated tournaments including at least four tournaments in 1980. First place in the Cleveland Open, scoring 5-0 over many masters from Ohio, Michigan and Illinois in the late 60’s. Ron is a veteran of many Michigan and national events, including the Michigan Open, the Michigan Speed Championships, the Motor City Open, the World Open and the Chicago Open.
In the blitz side event at the 1991 National Open in Chicago, he defeated GM Walter Browne, founder of the World Blitz Chess Association. Later that year, Ron finished in clear 2nd at the Canadian Open blitz tournament in Windsor. He also holds the unique distinction of scoring an undefeated 24 wins and 4 draws in a series of “Insanity” tournaments that used to be held in Cincinnati, Detroit and Toledo in the 60's and early 70's, making him the Insanity Champion.
Ron is the father of Ben Finegold, highest-rated International Master in the United States and three-time U.S. Championship participant, and NM (and life master) Mark Finegold.
This special game, we will present unannotated:
Robert
Fischer
Ron Finegold
Western Open, Round 5
Bay City, 1963
French: Winawer, C15
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 Nf6 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 Rg6 9.Qe3 b6 10.Bb2 Bb7 11.0–0–0 Nbd7 12.h3 Qe7 13.Ne2 0–0–0 14.c4 e5 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Rxd8+ Kxd8 17.Nf4 Rg8 18.Be2 Kc8 19.Rd1 Rd8 20.Rxd8+ Kxd8 21.Qg3 Ng6 22.h4 Nxf4 23.Qxf4 Ne8 24.h5 Bc8 25.h6 Qd6 26.Qg5+ Qe7 27.Qd5+ Qd6 28.Qg5+ Qe7 29.Qg3 Bf5 30.Qf4 Qe6 31.g4 Bg6 32.Qg5+ Qe7 33.Qd5+ Qd6 34.Be5 Qxd5 35.cxd5 f6 36.Bg3 Ke7 37.Kd2 Nd6 38.Ke3 b5 39.Bxd6+ Kxd6 40.Kd4 a6 41.c4 bxc4 42.Bxc4 a5 43.Ba2 f5 44.gxf5 Bxf5 45.Bb3 Bg6 46.Ba4 Bf5 47.Be8 Ke7 48.Ke5 Bg4 49.Bg6 Bd7 50.Bxh7 c5 51.dxc6 Bxc6 52.Bxe4 Bxe4 53.Kxe4 Kf6 54.f4 1–0
Lester
Van Meter (2350)
Ron Finegold (2125)
Region V Open, Round 2
Monroe, 1986
Irregular Queen's Pawn: Polish, A40
Notes by Tim McGrew
Here is a very strange game that bears the unmistakable stamp of Ron Finegold's strategic imagination. Beginning with a decidedly odd opening, Ron steers the game into French like channels. Before long Black is a pawn ahead, then two pawns -- I'm sure White was still wondering how this all happened -- and Ron tightens the coils until his opponent collapses.
1.d4 b5!?
The insanity starts early in this game. Is this move even legal here? Yes, It is known as the Polish Defense -- but you may live long before one of your opponents ventures it. Michael Basman advocated this in the late 1970's and Julian Hodgson messed around with it in the early 1980's, but it achieved its greatest respectability (if you can call it that) when Boris Spassky adopted it successfully in 1990.
2.e4 Bb7!?
Still more insanity! Black offers to swap a wing pawn for a center pawn. Is this good for White because he gains time, or is it bad because center pawns are more valuable than wing pawns?
3.Qd3
I take this as a sign that White is somewhat out of his depth. In the Orangutan, 1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 Qd6!? is a respectable idea, so perhaps White is borrowing plans. But as the game goes on we get the strong impression that White's queen is out of place in the center. Is there nothing better? 3.Bxb5 looks like a principled continuation. Black can (and should) grab back the pawn, though there is a truly demented alternative. 3...Bxe4 (3...f5?! should fail for direct tactical reasons, though it gets rather involved when one tries to prove this exhaustively: 4.exf5 Bxg2 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Bg7! Relatively best: Black will recapture the new White queen on g8 with his king. 7.gxh7+ Kf8 8.hxg8Q+ Kxg8. Since White's queen is still under fire, Black gets the rook on h1 after all. But where did all the Black king-side pawns go? 9.Qg6 Bxh1 10.Bf4 Nc6 11.Ne2 Rb8 12.Nbc3 Rb6 13.Qg3 d6 14.Bc4+ Kf8 15.0–0–0 Na5 16.Rg1 and Black gave up the madness in Pohl-Leisebein, corr 1990.) 4.Nf3, White's development is good and he is going to gain another tempo with Nc3 some time soon, so we must evaluate the position as better for White. Yet this is probably what Finegold was hoping for. The position is sufficiently unbalanced that White cannot play in a wholly risk-free manner. It is not too hard to imagine White drifting just a little and finding himself in a late middlegame where Black's center pawns really do matter more than White's spent initiative. 3.Nd2! is probably the safest move. Now that e4 is defended Black needs to attend to his own hanging pawn, and after 3...a6, White has two approaches that are rather convincing: 4.Ngf3 (4.a4 b4 5.a5 e6 6.c3 c5 7.Ngf3 Nf6 8.Bd3 d5 9.e5 Nfd7 10.Bb1 Nc6 11.0–0 Nxa5 12.Ng5 Be7 13.f4 Nc6 14.Nxe6!! A tremendous sacrifice that requires further sacrifices for its justification. 14...fxe6 15.Qh5+ Kf8 (15...g6 16.Bxg6+! hxg6 17.Qxg6+! Kf8 18.f5! Qe8 19.fxe6+ Nf6 20.Qg5 Rh5 21.Qg4!+-) 16.f5 Nf6 17.exf6 Bxf6 18.fxe6 Qe8 19.Qxd5 cxd4 20.Ne4 Qe7 21.Rxf6+ gxf6 22.Bh6+ Kg8 23.Qf5 Rf8 24.Qg4+ and Black resigned just in
the
nick of time in Fatalibekova-Dubinskaya,
3...e6 4.Nd2 a6 5.a4 bxa4 6.Rxa4 d5 7.e5 c5 8.dxc5 Nd7
The position is already slipping out of White's control. Keep your eye on Black's knights -- they are destined to be developed in strange ways!
9.Qg3 Nxc5 10.Rg4 Nh6
It is becoming increasingly clear that this rook is a liability rather than an asset. Yet how hard it is for the stereotyped thinker to take all of this in! Can Black's knights really be dangerous on these odd squares? The sobering answer is that they can be very dangerous there indeed.
11.Rg5 g6 12.b4 Nd7 13.Bd3
There goes a pawn. And what a pawn -- it was the only thing restraining Black's a-pawn, which is now a latent threat whenever the question of an endgame arises. If you had to lay bets on which Black pawn will become a queen, isn't that the one you would choose? Keep this in mind so that you will be properly confused later.
13...Bxb4 14.Ngf3 Nc5
Ron goes his own way. 14...Be7! picks up even more material since the rook has no decent place to hide.
15.Qh4 Nxd3+ 16.cxd3 Bf8 17.0–0 Nf5!
There's that odd development of the knight again -- one square further forward than knights are supposed to be. Come to think of it, that means one square closer to the center. Perhaps there's a moral here...
18.Qa4+ Qd7
Black is naturally delighted at the thought of exchanging queens.
19.Qxd7+?
White seems to be determined that he can outplay his opponent if he can just get past the present bad spell in the game. This is not a very healthy attitude to take toward someone who has outplayed you convincingly in the opening and early middlegame. But we should not be too harsh: 19.Qa1 is not exactly an attractive move.
19...Kxd7 20.Rg4 Bc6
“No, you will not be allowed to set up a blockade on the a4 square.”
21.Ng5 Ke8 22.Nb3 Bb5 23.Rd1 h5 24.Rf4 Rc8
Aiming for the forking square c3.
25.h4 Rc3 26.Na5 Rxd3
There goes a second pawn. How do these things happen?
27.Rxd3 Bxd3 28.Nb7 Be7 29.Nd6+ Nxd6
A minor inaccuracy. 29...Bxd6 helps things to come off in the right order, e.g. 30.exd6 Nxd6 and Black is a solid three(!) pawns ahead while the f-pawn is firmly defended.
30.exd6 Bxg5 31.hxg5 e5 32.Rf3 Be4 33.Ra3
So White gets to take the a-pawn after all. But meanwhile his d-pawn cannot be held, and Black still has the passed d-pawn. Let's take that as our new candidate for a potential queen and see whether our second guess is better than the first.
33...Kd7 34.Rxa6 d4 35.f4
White is trying hard to break up Black's pawns, but his bishop on c1 is vulnerable.
35...Rc8 36.Ba3 exf4 37.Ra7+ Kc6 38.Rxf7 Bf5
Holding the extra material firmly.
39.Kf2 d3
Passed pawns must be pushed!
40.Rc7+
Seeking salvation in an endgame with bishops of opposite colors. There is a myth that all such endings are drawn, but it ain't necessarily so.
40...Rxc7 41.dxc7 Kd5
Black's king is needed in the center -- the White c-pawn cannot queen anyway.
42.Bc1
42.Kf3 allows 42...Bg4+ 43.Kf2 d2 44.c8Q Bxc8 45.Ke2 f3+! with a finish similar to the game.
42...Ke4 43.Bd2 h4 44.Bc1 Bc8 45.Ke1 Kf5 46.Kd2 f3! 0–1 A nice breakthrough caps Black's strategic masterpiece. White cannot hold after 47.gxf3 h3 when the Black h-pawn cannot be stopped.
William
Wright (1965)
Ron Finegold (2150)
Region V Open, Round 5
Detroit, 1990
Queen's Gambit: Albin (Lasker Trap), D08
Notes by Tim McGrew
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e3?
It has been known for about a century that this move is a mistake, ever since three opponents in consultation fell into it against Emmanuel Lasker. Yet the refutation requires precise handling by Black. Ron Finegold gives us a model game from Black's perspective that shows exactly how the tactics should be handled.
4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4 Apparently White is winning a piece for very little trouble. 6.fxe3 gives Black two good options. The complex line runs 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qe4 8.Qf3 Bxd2+ 9.Nxd2 Qxe5 regaining the pawn immediately, when White will have difficulties with his e-pawn later on. But a simpler way to handle the position is 6...Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 Qxd2+! 8.Nxd2 Nc6 9.Ngf3 Nge7. Black will castle queen-side and focus on the doubled, isolated pawns on the e-file, one of which is almost sure to fall. In a famous 1899 game, Blumenfeld, Boyarkov and Falk in consultation chose 6.Qa4+. Emmanual Lasker replied with the natural 6...Nc6 but after 7.Bxb4 Lasker played the tricky 7...Qh4!?, which is pretty effective, but it is simpler just to play 7...exf2+ 8.Kxf2 Qh4+ 9.Ke2 Qxc4+ 10.Ke1 Qxb4+µ leaves Black a pawn up in a queenless middlegame.
6...exf2+ 7.Ke2
White must keep his king close to the queen.
7...fxg1N+!
Here is the trick that makes it all work for Black. The thoughtless 7...fxg1Q? allows 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Rxg1 and there is no skewer on the diagonal from g4 to d1.
8.Ke1
But what should Black do now? A queen exchange leaves the knight trapped on g1.
8...Qh4+ 9.Kd2
9.g3? Qe4+ picks up the rook on h1.
9...Nc6!
Now that White's king is on the d-file, Black plays to castle queen-side with all possible speed. He has two pieces to clear out of the way, and he develops both of them with threats so that White never has time to consolidate.
10.Bc3 Bg4! 11.Qe1 0–0–0+ 12.Ke3
White's king is very exposed, but as it turns out Black has a different aim here. He wants to trap White's queen! And that is exactly what happens.
12...Qg5+! 13.Kf2
13.Ke4? Bf5# makes a pretty picture.
13...Rd1 14.Qe4 Bf5
14...f5 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6+ is also very effective.
15.Qe3 Rxf1+! 0–1
White must lose the queen and get mated shortly thereafter.
© 2003 Michigan Chess Association
Last updated: March 11, 2003