Board 1, Round 1
White: Matthew Bengtson (Harvard, 2290)
Black: Geoffrey Gelman (MIT, 2300)
Annotations by Matthew Bengtson

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 d6?! 6. Nd5 Bc5
This can't be right for Black because 4... Bc5 doesn't even have a great reputation. 5... 0-0 is natural and correct.
7. d3?!
I wanted to play 7.d4 intending Bg5, but I found that White doesn't get enough after 7. d4 Nxd4 8. Nxd4 Bxd4 9. Bg5 c6 etc. However, since Black isn't going to 'overlook' Bg5, 7. 0-0 was more to the point, enabling a future d4 without loss of tempo.
7... Nxd5 8. cxd5 Ne7 9. e4 0-0 10. 0-0?!
Much better would be 10. d4! when White would have a nice positional advantage.
10... f5 11. Bd2 Qe8?!
After 11... a5! Black would have a very comfortable game.
12. b4! Bb6 13. Qc2?
The English is such a frighteningly sharp opening! - the evaluation keeps changing, and White can't afford this lethargic move; 13. a4! a5 14. bxa5 gives White an initiative on the Q-side.
13... Qh5! 14. Qb3!
I overlooked Black's last move, which threatened fxe4, and if the knight moves, ...f4 is overwhelming. Luckily I had the objectivity to "take back" my last move while I had the chance.
14... f4?!
Kills all of Black's accomplishments! After 14... fxe4 15. dxe4 Bg4 16. Ng5 Be2 17. Ne6 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 White certainly has great compensation for the exchange (as always) but Black probably has slightly better changes.
15. d4(!) Bg4 16. gxf4
Much as I wanted to hit him with the 'shock' 16. Nxe5, I had to admit it didn't look too good after dxe5 17. d6+ Rf7 18. dxe7 f3 19. Bh1 Bxd4.
16... exf4 17. a4 Rf6 18. a5 Bxf3 19. Qxf3 Qxf3 20. Bxf3 Bxd4 21. Rac1 Ng6 22. Bg4 Ne5 23. Be6+ Kh8 24. Kh1 Nf3 25. Bc3 Bxc3 26. Rxc3 Nd2??
My defense has been completely successful. After 26... Ne5 27. Rxc7 White is not worse. I'm not too sure where Black went wrong but 17... Rf6 looks suspicious. The text is a time pressure blunder - throughout the mess I had a clear plan and had managed to accumulate a nice time advantage by executing it quickly.
27. Re1 c6 28. Re2 cxd5 29. exd5 Nb1 30. Rb3 f3 31. Rc2
And about 15 moves later, Black flagged in a lost position.
[1-0]

Board 1, Round 2
White: Geoffrey Gelman (MIT, 2300)
Black: Matthew Bengtson (Harvard, 2290)
Annotations by Matthew Bengtson

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. 0-0 Nxe4 7. Nxe4 d5 8. Bd3 dxe4 9. Bxe4 c5
Although book claims that Black gets equality after this, in my opinion White's strong play in this game proves otherwise; from now on I'm playing 9... Nd7, or else I'm not going to use the knight fork trick.
10. dxc5 Qc7 11. c3 Qxc5 12. Be3 Qc7
For a while I thought that this was a mistake and I ought to have tried ...Qb5, but then 13. Qb3 would be aggravating. Black's queen never finds a satisfactory square, and the queenside pieces can't develop with White's menacing centrally placed bishops.
13. Nd4 Nd7
I didn't want to allow a weakening of my queenside, but ...Nc6 or ...a6 would have led to smoother development and should be considered.
14. Re1 Ne5?!
This move is probably the culprit. After 14... Nc5! Black can develop and White would have only a small positional advantage.
15. Bf4 Qb6 16. Qb3!
I overlooked this powerful retort when I played my 14th move.
16... Qc5 17. Rad1 Nc4 18. Bd3 Na5 19. Qa4?!
I'm squirming the best I can. But now White ought to have tried 19. Qc2!? when 19... Bxd4 20. cxd4 Qxc2 21. Bxc2 e6 22. d5 looks ugly for Black, and 19... e5 20. b4 Qc7 21. Nb5 is very powerful for White.
19... e5
Now Black seems to hold his own in the rapid-fire complications.
20. b4 Qxc3 21. Nb5 Qc6 22. Bxe5 Bxe5 23. Rxe5 Nc4
As I saw when I played my 19th, this knight is not vulnerable but in fact very strong! The threat 24... Nb2 is not to be sneezed at.
24. Bxc4 Qxc4 25.Rc5?!
This is pointless, but White's initiative has dissipated. Since both sides' pieces seem about equally badly posted, the position looks equal.
25... Qg4?! 26. h3 Qe2 27. Rdc1 Bd7 28. Nc3 Qe6 29. Qc2 b6 30. Rc7 Rfc8 31. Ne4??
A horrible lemon in time trouble. But after 31. Rxc8 Rxc8 Black is actually a little better.
30... Rxc7 31. Qxc7 Rc8
[0-1]

Board 2, Round 1
White: Chris von Krogh (MIT, 2250)
Black: Mark Kernighan (Harvard, 2260)
Annotations by Matthew Bengtson

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. Nf3? e4! 4. Ng1 c6?!
This is the mirror image of the position arising after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5?!, when 4. dxc5! is considered extremely good for White. Thus Black should have played 4... dxc4, although the text can't be too awful.
5. Nc3 Nf6?!
This simply can't be right. ...Be7 or ...Be6 should be played; how does White intend to develop the K-side? Eventually White will have to play e3 or Bf4, after which ...Nf6 is fine.
6. Bg5 Be7 7. e3
Now all of a sudden, White can be delighted with the outcome of the opening.
7... Qb6!?
This looks odd; I would recommend ...Be6 or even ...Na6-c7.
8. Qb3 Be6 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. Bxf6 gxf6
Allowing for Bb4+ in some variations. Black's already positionally lost, so Mark correctly spoils his pawns for some swindling chances.
11. Nge2?!
Come on, this is really lethargic. Black's play must be punished with 11. Bb5+.
11...Bd6 12.Qxb6?
I would be very curious to see what Black would do after the straightforward 12. Nb5, but White seems set on forgiving Black for all his sins (remember 3. Nf3?).
12...axb6 13. Nb5 Bb4+ 14. N2c3 Kd7 15. a3 Rc8 16. Rc1 Be7 17. Kd2?
This is a very natural move, but as the sequel shows, the king can get uncomfortable here, and Be2 intending 0-0 retains a positional advantage. However Black has begun to get some counterplay.
17... Nc6 18.b4
Unsavory, but the threat of 18... Na5 was very awkward to meet.
18... Kd8 19. Be2 Na7 20. f3 f5 21. f4
I'm going to balk at commenting in detail here. The sequence probably is good for Black. As a result of it, the e3 pawn is weakened although the Black bishop on e6 does look horrible.
21... Bd7 22. Nxa7 Rxa7 23. Nb1 Rca8 24. Kc3?
This is a big mistake! Apparently due to time trouble. White still has the advantage after 24. Rc3! since 24... Rxa3 fails to 25. Nxa3 Bxb4 26. Ra1! Also 24. Ke1 is worth a look for the fun: 24...Rxa3 25. Nxa3 Bxb4+ 26. Kf2 Rxa3 27. Rc2?! (27. Ra1 keeps a plus) Ba4 28. Rb2 Bc3 29. Rxb6 Bd2 30. Rxb7 Bxe3+ 31. Kg3 Bxd4+ 32. Kh4 Bf6+ and the final position isn't even easy to evaluate!
24... Rxa3+ 25. Nxa3 Rxa3+ 26. Kb2 Rxe3 27. Bh5 Bxb4
And Black eventually won (after trapping White's Rook on g2 with a Bishop on f1!)
[0-1]

Board 2, Round 2
White: Mark Kernighan (Harvard, 2260)
Black: Chris von Krogh (MIT, 2250)
Annotations by Matthew Bengtson

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Be3 O-O 8. Qd2 c5 9. Rb1 Nc6 10. d5?!
In stark contrast to the previous game, the first nine moves were impeccably played by both sides! But here White is inconsistent; after 10. Nf3 the move Rb1 has a point, that after Bg4, ...Rxb7 can be played. Here, however, the rook will have to move again.
10...Qa5! 11. Rc1 Ne5?
But this is also inconsistent; the knight isn't well placed here. After 11... Rd8 followed by ...e6 Black probably stands well. After the text the advantage shifts back to White.
12. h3 Rd8?!
Frighteningly passive. 12... b5 or 12... c4 should be tried, although I put very little faith in either. Along more solid lines, ...Bd7 or ...b6 would even be better; Black has missed his chance to nibble in the center.
13. f4 Nd7?!
And here I would advocate 13... Nc6!? with the idea 14... e6 15. c4 Qxd2+ 16. Kxd2 Nd4.
14. Nf3 Nf6 15. Qc2
The position is very tactical, but I prefer the natural 15. Bd3, since 15... c4 16. Bb1 e6 17. d6 can only be good for White.
15... e6
Doesn't work. Black should content himself with 15... b6.
16. d6! Nxe4
This doesn't look very convincing but the alternatives may be worse: 16... Rxd6, which I thought made sense during the game, doesn't work out because 17. e5 Nd5 18. exd6 Nxe3 19. Qd2 Nd5 20. Ne5 is just bad for Black. Maybe Black should play 16... Bd7 and hope for the best.
17. Qxe4 Bxc3+ 18. Kf2 Qxa2+ 19. Rc2 Qa5 20. Ne5 Bd7?
Say what? After the text Black is trivially lost. Admittedly even after 20... Rb8?! 21. h4!? f6 (or 21... h5 22. Nxg6! [emphatically not 22. g4? b5!! when Black is even better!] 22... Rxd6 [not 22... fxg6 23. Qxg6+ Kh8 24. Bd3 or 23... Kf8 24. f5] 23. Ne5 with a winning position for White) 22. Nc4 Qb4 23. h5 f5 24. Qd3 Bg7 25. Bd2 Qb1 26. hxg6 hxg6 27. Bc3, Black would probably be only somewhat nontrivially lost. 20... Be1+! 21. Kg1 (21. Kf3?! f5! and 22... b6!) 21... Bh4 looks surreal but it may be the only chance! e.g. 22. Rxc5?! Qe1! [with the threat ...Bf2+] 23. Qf3 b6!, with the idea ... Ba6. However, White can mount an attack with 22. f5!? Bf6 23. fxg6 hxg6 24. Rxc5 (the brutal 24. Nxg6 doesn't succeed: 24... fxg6 25. Qxg6+ Bg7 26. Bh6 Qa1!) 24... Qa3 25. h4! So I have to conclude that Black is lost here.
21. Qxb7 Bxe5 22. fxe5 c4 23. Qe4 Rac8 24. Bg5 Bc6 25. Qe3 Bd5 26. Bxd8 Qxd8 27. Kg3 a5 28. Qf4 Qb6 29. Rf2 f5 30. exf6 Kf7 31. d7 Rd8 32. Bxc4?? Bxc4??
32... g5! Must have been time pressure.
33. Qxc4 Qe3+ 34. Rf3 Qg5+ 35. Kh2 Rxd7 36. Re1 Qd5 37. Qf4 Qd6 38. Qxd6 Rxd6
And White won. A very strong game by Mark.
[1-0]

Board 3, Round 1
White: Pat Corn (Harvard, 1900)
Black: Eric Allen (MIT, 2000)
Annotations by Jeremy Martin

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. g4 Nc4 13. bxc4 Rxc4 14. h4 h5 15. Bh6?! Nxe4! 16. Nxe4 Rxd4 17. Qg5 Rxd1+?!
More enterprising is 17... Ra4!? 18. Kb1 Be6. Black certainly stands better, nevertheless.
18. Rxd1 hxg4 19. Bxg7 Kxg7 20. h5 Bf5 21. Rh1 Rh8 22. Ng3 e6 23. h6+ Kh7 24 Qe3 Qf6 25. Rf1 Rc8 26. c3 Qe5? 27. Qxe5 dxe5 28. fxg4 Bxg4 29. Rxf7+ Kxh6 30. Rxb7 Bf3?! 31. Rxa7 e4 32. Re7 Rc6
Black has the initiative, but the position isn't clear anymore.
33. Kd2 Rd6+ 34 Ke3 Rd3+ 35. Kf4 e5+? 36. Rxe5 Rd2 37. Nxe4 Bxe4 38. Rxe4 Rxb2 39. a4
The rest of the moves were lost in mutual time pressure, but the final result was a draw.
[1/2-1/2]

Board 3, Round 2
White: Eric Allen (MIT, 2000)
Black: Jeremy Martin (Harvard, 2220)
Annotations by Jeremy Martin

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5
This opening works so well for Matt that I thought I'd give it a try.
4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 O-O 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Nxd5 Qxd5 8. Bxc7
Uh-oh, I'm already out of book. I wasn't thrilled with the idea of 8... Na6 9. Bxa6 Qxg2 10. Qf3, with a bad ending for Black. Apparently this is book and the move that I chose is inferior. Oh well.
8... Nc6 9. Ne2 Bf5 10. Nc3 Qd7 11. Bg3 Nb4 12. Rc1 e5
Clearly Black has to open the position to profit from his development advantage.
13. e4??
A bad tactical mistake-- but just on general principles, you don't want to play this kind of move. Clearly, only Black can profit from chaos in the center of the board. After the sane 13. dxe5, Black does not have enough for the sacrificed material after 13... Nd3+ 14. Bxd3 Bxd3 15. f3 and 16. Kf2. In the complications that now ensue, White's undeveloped position gets clobbered.
13... exd4! 14. exf5 Qe7+! 15. Qe2 Qc5 16. Qb5 Qe7+ 17. Be2
If White repeats the position with 17. Qe2, there follows 17... Qg5, whereupon the threats of ...Qxc1+, ...Re8, and ...dxc3 make White's life unbearable.
17... dxc3 18. bxc3 Nxa2 19. O-O Nxc3 20. Rxc3 Bxc3
The rest of the game needs no comment.
21. Bf3 a6 22. Qxb7 Qxb7 23. Bxb7 Ra7 24. Rb1 a5 25. Bd6? Rd8 26. Bc5 Rxb7
[0-1]

Board 4, Round 1
White: Aleksey Zinger (MIT, 1850)
Black: Raphael Maiopoulos (Harvard, 1850)
Annotations by Jeremy Martin

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. Nf3 Qe8 7. O-O Qh5 8. Ne5 d6 9. Bf3 Ng4!? 10. Nxg4 fxg4 11. Bg2 c6
Black's enterprising 9th move has given him an open file and a clamp on the Kingside, at the price of a rather illiquid pawn structure. White's KB exerts pressure on the Queenside and hampers Black's development, which is why White's next, closing the Bishop's diagonal, is inferior.
12. d5? cxd5 13. cxd5 e5
The obvious response. This exchange has only helped Black; his QB is no longer bad and White's d-pawn blocks his pieces.
14. e4 Qg6 15. Be3 Bd7 16. a4 Bg5?!
Simple development with 16... Na6 looks better; it is not clear why Black wants to trade the dark-squared Bishops.
17. Nb5 Bxb5
Not a trade Black makes happily, but White threatened both 18. Nxa7 and 18. Nc7.
18. axb5 Bxe3 19. fxe3 Rxf1 20. Qxf1 Nd7 21. Qf5 Qxf5 22. exf5
Black stands well in this endgame, as White's bishop is not a very good piece due to the d- and f-pawns being fixed on light squares.
22... Nc5 23. b6 a6 24. Ra3 Nd7 25. e4 Rc8
Since 25... Nxb6? 26. Rb3 would only help White, Black grabs the open file.
26. Bf1 Rc1 27. Rb3 Nc5
The game score ends here-- mutual time pressure must have occurred around this point. Black stands significantly better due to his more active pieces. After 27. Rb4 Re1, White looks to be in a deal of trouble after, say, 28. Kf2 Rxe4 29. Rxe4 Nxe4+ 30. Ke3 Nf6 and 31... Nd7. Black eventually won after a time scramble.
[0-1]

Board 4, Round 2
White: Raphael Maiopoulos (Harvard, 1850)
Black: Aleksey Zinger (MIT, 1850)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 Nf6?! 6. Bc4 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 d5 9. Bd3 Bd6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 Bg4 12. Nbd2 Nbd7 13. c4 dxc4 14. Nxc4 Bb4 15. Re3 c6 16. a3 Be7 17. Nce5?! Nxe5 18. Rxe5 Bxf3 19. Qxf3 Qxd4 20. Rxe7 Qxh4 21. Rxb7 Ng4 22. h3 Ne5 23. Qe4 Qxe4 24. Bxe4 (+/=) Rab8 25. Rxb8 Rxb8 26. b4 Rc8?! 27. Rc1 g6 28. g4
Time pressure once again obliterated the rest of the game score.
[1-0]

Board 5, Round 1
White: Bryant Vernon (MIT, 1700)
Black: David Revelle (Harvard, 1450)

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Bg5 Nc6 7. Qd2 Rb8 8. Nge2 a6 9. a4 Na5 10. Nc1 c5 11. b4? cxb4 12. N3a2 b3 13. Nc3 Qc7 14. Bxf6 Bxf6 15. Nd5 Nxc4! 16. Qc3 (16. Nxc7 Nxd2 17. Kxd2 b2 -/+) 16... Qa5 17. Bxc4 Qxc3+ 18. Nxc3 b2 19. Rb1 bxc1=Q+ 20. Rxc1 Bxd4 21. Ne2 Bg7 22. O-O
White flagged a few moves later, but his position is lost anyway.
[0-1]

Board 5, Round 2
White: Bryant Vernon (MIT, 1700)
Black: Pat Corn (Harvard, 1900)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 d6 7. Be3 Bb6 8. Bxb6 axb6 9. h3 Be6 10. Bxe6 fxe6 11. d4 exd4 12. Nxd4 e5?? 13. Nf5?? (13. Ne6!) 13... Nxe4 14. Nxg7 Kxg7 (14... Nxc3 15. Qg4!) 15. Nxe4 Qh4 16. Ng3 Nd4 17. Qd3 Kh8 18. c3 Ne6 19. Nf5? Qg5 20. Ne3 Nf4 21. Qe4 Nxh3+ 22. Kh2 Nxf2 23. Rxf2 Rxf2 24. Ng4 Rf4 25. Qxb7 Rg8
[0-1]

Board 6, Round 1
White: Richard Chen (MIT, 1200)
Black: David Revelle (Harvard, 1450)

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 O-O 5. e3 d5 6. Be2 Bg4 7. h3 Bf5 8. Qb3 b6 9. Ne5 c6 10. g4 Be6 11. f4?! dxc4 12. Bxc4 Bxc4 13. Qxc4 Qd6 14. Qd3 Nfd7 15. Nc4 Qc7 16. Bd2 c5 17. Qe4 Nc6 18. Nb5 Qc8 19. Bc3?! cxd4 20. cxd4 Nxd4! (-/+) 21. Qd3?? Nxb5 (-+) 22. O-O-O? Nxc3 23. bxc3 Rd8 24. Rhe1 Nc5 25. Qxd8+ Qxd8 26. Rxd8+ Rxd8 27. Rxe7 Rd7 28. Re8+ Bf8 29. Ne5 Nd3+ 30. Kc2 Nxe5 31. Rxe5
[0-1]