Annotated Game #4 from the 1998 New York Open

annotations by NM Steve Mayer

GM Bareev, Evgeny  (2675) - GM Agrest, Evgenij) [A88] &  FM Paschall, William (2375) - GM Spraggett, Kevin (2575)

1998 New York Open (Round 2) (Bd 1 & 31),   16.03.1998


And now for a funny little story. Perhaps you have heard of Game Theory. Is chess a game of ‘perfect knowledge’ or a game of ‘imperfect knowledge?’ In this round, Bill Paschall, an IM aspirant- he has two norms already- was seated where he could see the demo board for Bareev’s game. Astonishingly, his game reached the same position early on as Bareev, who is known as very knowledgable about the ‘ins and outs’ of the Dutch Defence. (But isn’t this true of everyone who speaks Russian?) His opponent,

whose back was to the demo board, may or may not have known about this situation. Now is it ‘right’ that Paschall should have the potential ‘input’ of the number one seed in the tournament? It’s hard to see this as ‘just’ but it’s also difficult to see how to get around such events.

In fact, it didn’t seem as if Paschall noticed the demo board. He was probably too busy concentrating on his own board.

And here are the games themselves; note the position after Black(s) 7th move. But everyone ‘had their own ideas’ and no one felt it necessary to decide the tournament in round two. Bareev made the ‘most’ effort but who can blame Agrest for not taking the rook with his fianchettoed bishop?

Bareev - Agrest

1. d4 d6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 f5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-O c6 8. d5 e5 9. dxe6 Bxe6 10. b3 Na6 11. Ng5 Qe7 12. Ba3 Rad8 13. Nxe6 Qxe6 14. e3 Rfe8 15. Qc2 Nc5 16. Rad1 Nce4 17. Nxe4 Nxe4 18. Rd3 Rd7 19. Rfd1 Red8 20. Bb2 Nc5 21. Rd4 Qe7 22. R4d2 Ne4 23. Rd4 Nc5 24. R4d2 Ne4 1/2-1/2

Paschall - Spraggett

1. d4 d6 2. c4 f5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 c6 8. d5 cxd5 9. cxd5 Na6 10. Be3 Nc5 11. Rc1 Qa5 12. Qd2 Bd7 13. Bh6 Rac8 14. Bxg7 Kxg7 15. Nd4 Na4 16. Nb3 Qb4 17. Nxa4 Qxd2 18. Nxd2 Bxa4 19. e4 fxe4 20. Nxe4 Nxe4 21. Bxe4 Bd7 22. f4 Kf6 1/2-1/2