|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted April 02, 2004 02:47 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
I just noticed that the word mediocre carries different meanings, I meant to use it in the sense of average, neither good nor bad. But the way the tournament went, after round 5 I felt rather depressed.
The reason is: The last games that I played against the really high rated opponents (Georgiev and Tiviakov) were very quick and very bad on my part - and while I usually scored full points against players below 2300, my main goal in this tournament was to play good chess and get at least one good result against the IMs and GMs.
Now, in an Open like Wörishofen and with a rating around 2250, during the first 7 rounds there are only two kinds of opponents: The ones who are rated below 2150 and those who are above 2400. And you need to beat the first ones to "qualify" for a game against the second.
The qualification part worked very well, but in the two games against the masters, I made disgusting mistakes right in the opening, and got into losing positions before move 20 already. That was exactly the thing that I wanted to avoid at all costs - I wanted to play a real game at the very least, it would have been okay to lose an ending against GM Teske at move 70.
Quote: I mean a few months ago it looked like you had already given up hope to become an IM and had restricted yourself to try and become an FM and beating an IM now and then.
 I´m not sure that this has changed much. Maybe I´ll be able to get second and third IM norm in my life, but reaching an ELO of 2400 is another matter ... I really would have to improve alot in order to get anywhere near that.
Quote:That guy is a living legend, having been in the world top for decennia. I bet that as a kid you have even replayed his games . Needless to say I expect this match to be included in the games you plan to post  .
Not only as a kid, I have bought two of his books not too long ago .
Yes, I´ll post the game of course. It looks a bit spoiled by the gross blunders that we exchanged on move 13, but I think that the complications that arose when the old man wanted a material advantage too quickly are rather interesting.
Quote: ... because obviously the I-am-too-old-already-excuse is not valid anymore  .
Quote: Hmm, I would almost forget you to congratulate with your promotion to the 2. Bundesliga as well; it seems to me that your team can be quite happy with your +4 score. I think it’s a very nice result, since in my opinion having personal success is one thing, but contributing to the achievements of your team can be much more rewarding.
Thank you - yes, that´s true (well, not the part with the +4 score, because it was actually a +5: 6.5/8 ). In the second round, we had half of our team ill (or prevented for other reasons), so we were forced to travel to a very strong team with only 6 players (instead of 8) - two of them substitutes! After we managed to hold that match 4-4 (pregnant WGM Kiseleva made the worst blunder that I´ve ever seen in my chess life - getting herself mated on move 44 when she was basically up two queens ), our team´s spirits were great, escaping that certain loss gave us a bit of a feeling of being invincible.
Quote:Yes, this move was meant as a pawn sac to get some counterplay. You said yourself that sooner or later the f4 pawn would drop off the board anyway, so therefore I figured this move to be a good practical alternative to fleeing into a lost endgame.
Okay, I see now. But looking at the position, it seems to me that after I pluck the f4 pawn, g5 becomes very weak ...
Anyway, it certainly makes sense in such a position, to look out for an opportunity to give material for initiative.
Quote:
Though black must still play securely when the white king has arrived at c7, because then a timely advance of the h-pawn is necessary, I think.
Well, the king is cut off, and my g-pawn advances - I don´t think that the white king has any chance to run up to rank 7 ...
Now I almost forgot again to ask you - I´m not quite sure, but I think I remember that you sent me an IM (instant message ) before I went to Wörishofen ... did I write an answer on that?
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2004 01:55 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 4 Apr 2004
|
Hello Lews,
For me the additional advantage of studying games where you play black, is that my opening repertory with the black pieces is quite similar to yours. This allows me to study structures and openings that could appear in my games as well. I never encountered a fianchetto system against the benoni before (only against my benkö gambit), but I’ll be prepared for it now. After all, the most practical thing for me to do after my analysis is to adopt the same system against it myself.
Quote:
The fianchetto system against the Benoni is frequently used by some positionally-minded players, but does not have the reputation to be dangerous for black. White overprotects the central pawns e4/d5, and in case of a later e2-e4-e5 or a knight wandering to c6, the now-blocked bishop on g2 may become the dominating piece on the board. On the downside, the control of the squares d3/c4/b5 is lacking, which makes it considerably easier for black to gain all kinds of counterplay. Another (smaller) annoyance for white is his pawn g3, who after Bc1-f4 (and h2-h3) blocks the important retreat square h2.
I thought it was nice to further compare the mainline Modern Benoni that you used in the second game you posted with the fianchetto system against the Modern Benoni. The upper picture is of this game after white’s 12th move, while the lower picture is an important line in the Modern Benoni after white’s 12th move as you know.
I think that another disadvantage of the fianchetto is the extra tempo that white uses: g2-g3. Now white lacks the move h2-h3, which your opponent even played later in the game. On the other hand ideas such as Nf6-h5-f4 are now prevented of course. Also, pressure from black against d5 to prevent e4-e5 is not a good idea anymore (as you did in that earlier game). But, as you suggested, I don’t think this compensates for the fact that black can play b7-b5 a lot easier as long as the bishop is on g2. Therefore, if I were to play against the Modern Benoni as white I would still prefer that Taimanov attack.
Quote:
Another very interesting possibility is 10. Bf4 Ne4!? 11. Nxe4 Rxe4 12. Nd2 Rb4 13. a3 Rxf4 14. gxf4 Bxb2 15. Ra2 Bg7
When I was going through the databases looking for possible sidelines, I found that this move Ne4 is played more often and with more success after 10. Re1 a6 11. a4. If now 11. …Ne4 12. Nxe4 Rxe4 13. Nd2 Rb4, white’s a pawn is not there anymore to chase away the rook, so 11. …Ne4 may be a worthy alternative to 11. …Nbd7
In this position, I would be rather partial to the typical Benkö-move Ng4 of course, which even seems to score fairly well. Therefore I find it interesting to see this motive coming back here. Consequently, the goal of 13. h3 is quite obvious to me.
Quote:
13.Nd2 is better, in order to meet 13. ...Rb8 with 14.Nc4 (or 14.Nb3!? b5? 15. axb5 axb5 16.Na5)
I’m unsure why after 13. Nd2, black can’t first control the c4 square with 13. …Ne5 and after that start working on Rb8 and b5 ideas. Also, I don’t understand well how Nc4 or Nb3 stops the b7-b5 advance: 13. …Rb8 14. Nc4 b5 15. axb5 axb5 and now 16. Na5 fails to 16. …b4. In my opinion, both 17. Nb1 Ra8 18. Nb3 Bb7 and 17. Nc6 bxc3 18. Nxb8 cxb2 19. Bxb2 Qxb8 are good for black.
Quote:
13... Rb8
Now white has to make a concession, and goes for the most plausible one: To split black's pawn structure at the price of a half-opened b-file ...
Yes, I also encountered this idea in your commentary on your drawn team championship-game against that Taimanov/flick knife attack. But here I wonder if 14. Bf1 would be a good alternative. Black can answer that with 14. … c4 of course, but pressing b7-b5 would lead to some positional weaknesses in the black camp then, I think. I admit that playing Bf1 looks a bit like recognizing that one’s opening concept has failed, but when I looked it up the chessbase database mentions this move as the most popular by far.
Quote:
16. Nd2?!
White neglects the d3 square for one moment, which will be punished immediately. 16.Qc2 would have been more careful.
I think so too; Nd2 may even deserve a ‘?’. From here black has a clear advantage in my opinion and the black pieces start pouring into the white camp.
Quote:
19. Ra4 is what I expected during the game, but after 19. ...Rxa4 20. Nxa4 Nd3 21. Rd1 Nxd5 22. Nxc4 Nxc1 23. Rxc1 Nf6 black has a clear advantage.
I must admit that 19. …Rxa4 leads to complications that are tactically so complex that it is hard for me to judge the best continuations. For example, instead of 21. …Nxd5 there are other candidate moves such as Bd7, Bf5, Bh6 or Nxe4 that I find hard to calculate well. My chessprogram gives 21. …Nxe4 22. Nxe4 Bd7 23. Nc3 f5 24. Qc2 Nb4 25. Qd2 fxe4 26. Nxe4 a5 27. Re1 with in my opinion a clear advantage for black too. So it seems indeed that Ra4 is no solution either.
Quote:
21. Qxd3 Bxh3 22. Rxa6 Bd7 and for just one pawn, black has strong pressure on all three parts of the board.
This qualifies as higher chess logics to me . I know I wouldn’t have played Nd3 in a game, because I wouldn’t be able to make that compensation judgment after Bd7. I probably would have played a5 first.
Quote:
23. Qf1?
23. Qc2 is the lesser evil, although white's position is hardly enviable after 23... f5 24. f3 a5 and 25....Ba6
Now that you’re able to give your last piece a good square, while white’s dark bishop is undeveloped and his rooks unconnected, it is clear to me that white is won. But I must say that you played it out very well. The refutation of 29. Ne2 is nice too by the way (as you must have seen over the board): 29. …Bxe2 30. Qxe2 Qxc1 31. Rxc1 Rxc1 and 32. …Rcc2, so the unsatisfying 29. Na2 was indeed a necessity. From there I could have won too, probably .
Very nice game, analyzing the kind of positions that arise out of these Modern Benoni games is quite inspiring and I start feeling quite familiar with them too (even though I never had them in an OTB game ).
Quote:
…I usually scored full points against players below 2300…
Quote:
Maybe I´ll be able to get second and third IM norm in my life, but reaching an ELO of 2400 is another matter ... I really would have to improve alot in order to get anywhere near that.
Hmmm, maybe I’m wrong here, but isn’t it a feature of 2400 players to reliably beat players below 2300? This certainly isn’t typical for players with a rating of 2250, as you said you had some time ago (although I’m sure it has risen quite a bit lately).
Quote:
Yes, I´ll post the game of course. It looks a bit spoiled by the gross blunders that we exchanged on move 13, but I think that the complications that arose when the old man wanted a material advantage too quickly are rather interesting.
No problem, these gross blunders can be amusing for a change . Though I’m sure there is an earlier game awaiting me from the 3.5 out of 4?
Quote:
well, not the part with the +4 score, because it was actually a +5: 6.5/8
Ack, the competition existed out of 8 rounds...just when I was so sure you were on 5.5/7…
Quote:
Well, the king is cut off, and my g-pawn advances - I don´t think that the white king has any chance to run up to rank 7 ...
Not sure if we’re talking about the same line, because after 37. b4 d3 38. Rad7 Rxd7 39. Rxd7 Re5 40. Rxd3 Re2+ 41. Kf3 Rxa2 42. Rd6 Kg7 43. Rxb6, the white king is not cut off and will become very annoying. But I can win this endgame from my computer and that’s good, because I just upgraded my prog.
Quote:
Now I almost forgot again to ask you - I´m not quite sure, but I think I remember that you sent me an IM (instant message ) before I went to Wörishofen ... did I write an answer on that?
Not yet, but if necessary I can always resend it.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2004 05:10 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
I´m glad to hear that the game is useful for your opening repertory. Regarding the g3-system, my experience with it is rather different: It has actually been played more often against me in serious games than any other line! I don´t exactly know the reason for this, my guess would be that it fits in quite well for people who play the g3 King´s Indian or the Catalan (which can include move-orders like 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5).
Quote: When I was going through the databases looking for possible sidelines, I found that this move Ne4 is played more often and with more success after 10. Re1 a6 11. a4. If now 11. …Ne4 12. Nxe4 Rxe4 13. Nd2 Rb4, white’s a pawn is not there anymore to chase away the rook, so 11. …Ne4 may be a worthy alternative to 11. …Nbd7
Well, I didn´t even think that 10.Re1 is theory at all , as it neither put pressure on my position, nor did anything to restrict my play. Yes, you´re right that 10. …a6 and 11. …Ne4 is a worthy alternative, to say the least.
Quote: I’m unsure why after 13. Nd2, black can’t first control the c4 square with 13. …Ne5 and after that start working on Rb8 and b5 ideas. Also, I don’t understand well how Nc4 or Nb3 stops the b7-b5 advance: 13. …Rb8 14. Nc4 b5 15. axb5 axb5 and now 16. Na5 fails to 16. …b4.
Damn , you´re absolutely right here, looks like I´ve been quite superficial when I made my comments. I didn´t pay attention to the fact that white´s pawn has gone to e4. Yes, of course 13. …Ne5 works here, too - and also unlike one move earlier the knight´s tour to a5 wasn´t even a threat.
Quote: But here I wonder if 14. Bf1 would be a good alternative.
And again you´re right - my further comments, suggesting earlier improvements for white don´t make sense anymore because after 14. Bf1 I do not like black´s position at all! I should have gone for the Nf6-e4 idea, as you suggested.
Quote: This qualifies as higher chess logics to me . I know I wouldn’t have played Nd3 in a game, because I wouldn’t be able to make that compensation judgment after Bd7. I probably would have played a5 first.
Okay, but then white has time to cover the h3 pawn, and it still comes down to sacrificing c4. Lacking one kingside pawn (in addition to the fianchetto bishop), black´s later h7-h5-h4 can be very unpleasant for white king.
Thank you for your great critical analysis, caused me quite some extra work to get my annotations straight again , and also made me learn some new and interesting details about a line that I thought I knew very well.
Quote: Hmmm, maybe I’m wrong here, but isn’t it a feature of 2400 players to reliably beat players below 2300?
True, but then, it´s also a feature of 2400 players to score 50% against other 2400 players . Even now, having the best chess time of my life, of the 11/14 streak I scored in my recent elo rated games, it´s been 10.5/11 against elo 2050-2400 and 0,5/3 against 2400-2600.
When I analyse positions with IMs, the difference in strenght usually makes itself felt rather clearly - it´s hard to think about closing that gap when I see them calculating so many more variations and so much more quickly than I do.
Quote: Though I’m sure there is an earlier game awaiting me from the 3.5 out of 4?
Well, the only earlier game is round 6, where an old 2100 rated Bavarian blundered a knight, and only noticed its loss 3 or four moves later  . That one might be entertaining (and I think I would have posted a diagram if I had webspace where I could easily link it), but it´s not that interesting from the aspect of quality.
Then in round 7 came the game against Viktor Korchnoi ...
Quote:Ack, the competition existed out of 8 rounds...just when I was so sure you were on 5.5/7…
Actually it´s even 9 rounds , but we´ve already secured a promotion place with the round 8 win, and a team score of 14-2. If my calculation is correct, I can reach 2300 and become FM immediately if I manage to win my last game.
Quote: Not sure if we’re talking about the same line, because after 37. b4 d3 38. Rad7 Rxd7 39. Rxd7 Re5 40. Rxd3 Re2+ 41. Kf3 Rxa2 42. Rd6 Kg7 43. Rxb6, the white king is not cut off and will become very annoying. But I can win this endgame from my computer and that’s good, because I just upgraded my prog.
Well, I´m sure there are several ways to win the endgame. My main idea is to leave the pawn on h7 and play Kg7-h6, and then either Kh6-g5, or (if white prevents that by putting a rook to b7) g6-g5 . As soon as b4-b5 is played, I intend to cut off the king on the fourth rank.
If the white king rushes over to the queenside, I think simply Kh6-g6 and h7-h5 should be winning - at the moment when I´m forced to sacrifice my rook for the b-pawn, connected pawns + king will be too far advanced for white to stop ...
Quote: Not yet, but if necessary I can always resend it.
That would be very helpful ...
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 09:41 PM |
|
|
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. d4 c5
The night before the game, I had spent alot of time preparing for both the g3 and the f3 Benoni. So when Korchnoi played 1.c4, that was quite a shock, and I took the first opportunity to offer him a Benoni transposition ...
4. d5
... which he seemed to accept.
4... e6 5. Bg5
But this was a very unpleasant surprise for me. Korchnoi made the move very quickly, and it became obvious to me that I have walked straight into his opening preperation. The first four moves are identical to the (horrible) game I played against GM Georgiev in last year's tournament - and worries crossed my mind that my opponent might have found a weakness in my rather shaky move order, and a forced way to punish me for it. My only goal now was to get back into a normal Benoni position from the Bg5-system.
5... h6 6. Bh4 d6 7. e4 exd5 8. cxd5
And it worked! A solid theory position again. I relaxed and played the next moves (too) quickly.
8... Bg7 9. Nf3
In this line, white's pieces are placed very actively and harmoniously, but there's a downside to it. As soon as white has played his knight to f3 and abandoned his control of the h5 square, black is threatening to play g6-g5 and Nf6-h5, exchanging white's best minor piece. In the Modern Benoni, this kind of exchange (knight+kingside weaknesses vs. dark-squared bishop) is considered an achievement for black, unless white manages to exchange the light-squared bishops. In that case, the prospect of a white knight appearing on f5 should deter black from playing g6-g5.
9... a6 (9. ... g5? wasn't a good idea because of 10. Bg3 Nh5 11. Bb5+, and black has the unplesant choice between playing 11. ...Kf8 and allowing the light bishops' swap after 11. ...Bd7.)
After 9. ...a6, white has to make a concession: Either play 10.a4 and do without the pair of bishops, or allow black to expand on the queenside ...
10. Nd2 b5 11. Be2 O-O
(11... b4!?)
12. Qc2
The d1 square is vacated for the white knight's retreat, in case black plays b5-b4.
12... Re8
When I played this move, I was quite satisfied about the "fact" that white's castling was prevented for the moment, and "after white covers e2 and castles somehow, the standard maneuvre Ra7-e7 will bring back the threat on d5 again and secure me an active position".
13. O-O!?
And I played very quickly and confidently ...
13... Ra7?
13... g5 14. Bg3 b4 15. Nd1 Nxd5 Against anyone else, I would have happily snapped that pawn, but in this game, the possibility that my opponent would simply blunder a pawn like this was removed from my field of vision. Until ... well, some minutes ago, I was convinced that Korchnoi had made one of the worst moves of his chess career. But by routinely checking the online database, I stumbled upon an old game Timman-Robatsch that went 16. exd5 Rxe2 17. Qd3 Re8 18. Nc4 Nd7 19. Nde3! Ne5 20. Bxe5 Bxe5 21. Nxe5 Rxe5 22. f4! White had a very strong attack and won quickly.
Still, 13. ...Ra7? was an embarassing mistake. The idea to transfer the a8 rook to e7 is standard in early b7-b5 positions, but here it does not work well because of white's bishop on the h4-d8 diagonal. After white's obvious reply, g6-g5 is prevented and there's no good use for the rook on the seventh rank. Instead, I should have played a normal move like 13. ...Qc7 or 13. ...Nbd7.
14. f4 Qc7
A sad necessity for me, as the consequent 14... Rae7 makes myself vulnerable to all sorts of tactical threats. The direct breakthrough seems to lead to an advantage already, although with computer help, the resulting positions are not as clear as it would seem on first sight: 15. e5 dxe5 (15... Bf5 16. Nde4 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bxe4 18. Qxe4 g5 19. Bg3 gxf4 20. Qxf4 Bxe5 (20... dxe5 21. Qe4) 21. Qg4+ Kh8 22. Bh4) 16. Nde4 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bf5 18. Qxc5 Bxe4 19. d6 g5 20. dxe7 all three look better for white, even though there are resources and counterchances in black's positions.
15. Rae1!?
This is an unusual treatment of the position. If white permits an early b7-b5, this is usually followed by a quick a2-a4, in order to immobilize black's pawns and secure the c4 square.
15... Nbd7
15... Ng4 has initially been one of my ideas, but after 16. Nd1 I have absolutely no threats left.
16. e5?
It's well-known that Viktor Korchnoi has a fondness for material gains, but in this position he clearly overerstimated the value of the exchange. Instead he could have steadily improved his position: 16. a4 b4 17. Nd1 a5 18. Bb5! Ba6 19. Bxa6 Rxa6 20. Ne3 and white is clearly preferable.
16... dxe5 17. fxe5 Rxe5 18. Bg3 Qd8 19. Bxe5 Nxe5 20. Nde4
20. Bxb5? runs into 20... axb5 21. Rxe5 Ng4
20... Nxe4 21. Qxe4 Rd7 22. a3 Bb7
Now all of black's pieces work together in harmony. For the loss of e8 rook, I have won white's strongest minor piece and a pawn. On top of that, white's d5 pawn is very weak, needs to be protected by knight, rook and queen in order to stay on the board, and it's hard to suggest a way to regroup white's pieces. I believe that the position has at the very least reached dynamic equality.
23. Rd1 c4 24. Kh1 h5
I was aware that I could win back the pawn immediately by playing 24... f5 25. Qc2 Bxd5 26. Nxd5 Rxd5 27. Rxd5 Qxd5, but I did not like the notion of weakening my kingside and giving up my bishop pair for a pawn that didn't do much more than bind and block all of white's pieces. On a closer look though, the space-gaining f5 move can hardly be called "weakening" in this position, and with black's pressure on white's queenside pawns, and white's difficulties to make his king's position safe, it seems to me that black has an advantage here.
My 24. ...h5 had completely different ambitions. I estimated the position as equal, because I saw no way for white to make progress without dropping the d5 pawn. The h-pawn move further restricts the range of white's poor Be2, and gives me the extra resource Bg7-h6, just in case white decides to double rooks on the d-file. It was my intention to simply wait by playing Rd6, Qd7, Qd8, Qd7 - as there was no clear way for white to improve his pieces.
25. h3 Rd6 26. Qd4!?
The kind of move that you see only from very bad and very good players. After thinking for almost 30 minutes, Korchnoi found what is probably the only way for white to make any progress. Now he was threatening to improve his queen's position by means of either Qc5 or Qa7, and I decided to end my waiting tactics and jump into the following complications.
26... Nd3 27. Qa7 Nxb2
27... Rd7? 28. Bxd3 Bxd5 29. Qxd7 Qxd7 30. Be4+-
28. Qxb7 Rd7 29. Qxa6 Bxc3 30. Rc1
The computer suggests 30. Qxb5!?, but after 30... Nxd1 31. Rxd1 Be5 32. Bxc4 Rd6, black is completely okay (just compare the two bishops ...)
30... Be5
White has managed to break the positional stalemate, but at the price of his own king's safety.The evaluation of the position probably hasn't changed much, but it has become sharper, with all three results being possible now.
31. Qxb5 Rxd5 32. Qb7 Rd7 33. Qe4 Qg5
What will white do against the unpleasant threat Qg5-g3?
34. Rc3! Nd3!
Renewing the threat ...
35. Rf3
The computer found an amazing tactical shot for white here: 35. Bxd3 Qg3 36. Qxg6+!!. But after 36... fxg6 37. Bxc4+ Kg7 38. Rxg3 Bxg3 the position is dead equal, for example 39. a4 Re7 40. a5 Re1 41. Rxe1 Bxe1 42. a6 Bf2
35... Rd4?!
Here I could have reached a better ending by taking the rook: 35... Bxc3 36. Qe8+ Kg7 37. Qxd7 Ne5 38. Qd5 Nxf3 39. Qxf3 Qc1+ 40. Qf1 Qxa3 41. Bxc4. Not sure whether black has any real winning chances here, but there´s some potential to play against the white king, without any risk of losing.
EDIT: A friend of mine convinced me that there are no real winning chances here. White can simply move his king out into the open at first opportunity.
36. Qb7 Rf4 37. Bxd3
Here white had a last chance to play for a win: 37. Rxc4! Nf2+ 38. Kg1 Nxh3+ 39. Kf1 (39. Rxh3 Rxc4 40. Bxc4 Qc1+) 39... Rxf3+ 40. Bxf3 Nf4, and now for example 41. Qb5 Qf6 42. a4 Ne6, and it seems like black has sufficient counterplay. Still, this kind of position would have been quite dangerous to play against Korchnoi, with time becoming scarce.
37... Rxf3 38. Qxf3 Bxc3 39. Bxc4 Qc1+ 40. Qf1
And my opponent loudly declared "REMIS!" As I was in quite a nervous state and not sure whether I could trust my eyes, I let two more minutes run off the clock before accepting. (Which earned me a deeply disapproving look.)
1/2-1/2
____________
|
|
Fenix
Known Hero
In ranks of Nebwoocka Alliance
|
|
posted April 11, 2004 08:43 PM |
|
|
I started this thread a long ago. I didn't know it became that popular. I will soon join your debate. Are you club players?
____________
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2004 03:05 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 18 Apr 2004
|
Hello Lews,
I am pleased to hear that my previous analysis was of some value to you. I hope that I can continue that trend in this post.
Quote:
Well, the only earlier game is round 6, where an old 2100 rated Bavarian blundered a knight, and only noticed its loss 3 or four moves later .
That reminds me of some time long ago that my opponent with the black pieces executed a diligent tactical manoeuvre only to capture one of his own pieces…and did not realize this earlier than the moment he was being told that the piece in his hand was not white .
Quote:
If my calculation is correct, I can reach 2300 and become FM immediately if I manage to win my last game.
That’s great news . Please tell me when that time has come.
Quote:
If the white king rushes over to the queenside, I think simply Kh6-g6 and h7-h5 should be winning - at the moment when I´m forced to sacrifice my rook for the b-pawn, connected pawns + king will be too far advanced for white to stop ...
Yes, that’s the method I had used against my computer. I was indeed forced to sacrifice the rook but the resulting position is won of course.
I can imagine that drawing against somebody like Korchnoi has caused you to analyse your game quite thoroughly already, so it may be questionable whether I can find any improvements. Nevertheless, I hope it is at least interesting to read (in any case, for me it was enjoyable to analyse).
I have tried hard to find a punishment for your ‘shaky’ move order myself, but that is not easy. I can imagine however that it feels uncomfortable to put all your kingside pawns on white squares for a while, while knowing that this move order is quite offbeat (the chessgames.com database, for example, has 436 games for the position that arises after 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. d4 c5 4. d5, but in none of them 4. …e6 was played!). Also, the response 5. Bg5 appears quite rare and after 6. …d6 I cannot even find games with similar positions. In search of improvements I even considered ‘unnatural’ lines such as 7. Qa4+ Bd7 8. Qb3 b6 9. dxe6. I think that b7-b6 means a weakening, so that would be a justification for the queen manoeuvre. In order to be able to castle short, black should play Bxe6 now. This has the disadvantage that the d5-square will become very weak. But I guess this is not an improvement on the gamemove as the bishop on e6 has found a better square in comparison to not exchanging on e6 and the c6 square is available for the knight now. It is interesting by the way that after 9. …Bg7, the database shows 15 wins for black and 2 for white, while after 10. Nf3 the game transposes to a theory position. That quite shows there is a difference between those unreliable database statistics and the theoretic assessment of a position.
You mentioned 11. …b4!? as an interesting alternative to 11. …0-0. It forces the knight to a less favorable square, but I doubt if that weighs up to the fact that white will be able to move his knight to c4. So I think that 11. …0-0 may indeed be a safer move.
Quote:
Still, 13. ...Ra7? was an embarassing mistake. The idea to transfer the a8 rook to e7 is standard in early b7-b5 positions, but here it does not work well because of white's bishop on the h4-d8 diagonal. After white's obvious reply, g6-g5 is prevented and there's no good use for the rook on the seventh rank. Instead, I should have played a normal move like 13. ...Qc7 or 13. ...Nbd7.
Well, let’s say that I have seen (and especially made) more embarrassing mistakes . But still, I think that Ra7 would have been playable when 13. …g5 Bg3 had preceded this move. To me that seems to follow logically from the quote above and it has been played before with encouraging results.
Quote:
Qc7
A sad necessity for me, as the consequent 14... Rae7 makes myself vulnerable to all sorts of tactical threats.
I agree that 14. … Rae7 15. e5 seems to favour white, but I have also looked at how vulnerable black is to the new tactical threat 14. …Qc7 15. Bxb5. Of course both you and Korchnoi have seen this combination, so I guess that after 15. …axb5 16. Nxb5 Qb6 17. Nxa7 Qxa7 the fact that white is tied to his a- and e-pawn while black can win a tempo with Ba6 is enough compensation for black’s slight material deficit?
Quote:
20. Bxb5? runs into 20... axb5 21. Rxe5 Ng4
Still the situation is not so clear I think, as with 20. Bxb5 a load of tactics are unleashed. Forced seems to be the variation: 20. …axb5 21. Rxe5 Ng4 22. Re2 Bd4+ 23. Kh1. But then I can think of three credible continuations for black: 23. …b4, 23. …Nxh2 and 23. …Ne3. I think after 23. …Ne3 24. Rxe3 Bxe3 25. Nxb5 Rxa2 26. Qb3 Qa5 27. Nc4 Ra1 28. Nxe3 Ba6 (28. …Rxf1 29. Nxf1 Ba6 30. Nd6 Bxf1 +/=) 29. Rxf1 Qxf1+ 30. Qd1 Qxd1 31. Nxd1 Bxb5 the position is still unclear (although my chess program says white has an advantage). After 23. …b4 24. Nb5 Ba6 25. Nxd4 cxd4 26. Re4 Bxf1 27. Rxg4 Rc7 28. Qd1 Qc8 29. Nxf1 Rc1 30. Rxd4 Rxd1 31. Rxd1 I still cannot give a definite assessment of the position either. And finally after 23. …Nxh2 24. Rf4 (24. Re1 Qh4 25. g3 Qxg3 -/+ ; 24. Rc1 Bg4 25. Qd3 Bxe2 26. Qxe2 Qg5 -/+) 24. …Bg4 25. Nb3 Bxe2 26. Qxe2 Re7 it is black that has the advantage. Although there are probably improvements in these variations, I assume that based on this last complex line you gave a ‘?’ to Bxb5?
White’s 21. Qxe4 kept me thinking for quite a while too. Generally speaking, with so much pieces still on the board I’d rather have a knight in the centre of the board than a vulnerable queen. But I cannot see a justification for this (in my opinion) somewhat unnatural move. After Nxe4, the pin Bf5 is no problem as white can play Qxc5 and Nxe4 attacks the c-pawn as well.
Quote:
On a closer look though, the space-gaining f5 move can hardly be called "weakening" in this position, and with black's pressure on white's queenside pawns, and white's difficulties to make his king's position safe, it seems to me that black has an advantage here.
I agree on this; you seem to have a very nice space advantage here and your bishop is way better than white’s too. With careful play, you may have succeeded in a positional crush.
Quote:
The computer suggests 30. Qxb5!?, but after 30... Nxd1 31. Rxd1 Be5 32. Bxc4 Rd6, black is completely okay (just compare the two bishops ...)
Yes, it is remarkable how careful white must be for a queen/bishop battery on the b8-h2 diagonal. Due to the opposite colored bishops I think the position is indeed ‘drawish’. Therefore 27. …Bxd5 as an alternative to 27. …Nxb2 is not that interesting anymore (27. …Bxd5 28. Nxd5 Rd7 29. Qxa6 Rxd5) as black should be able to hold the draw there too.
Quote:
What will white do against the unpleasant threat Qg5-g3?
34. Rc3! Nd3!
I see that Rc3 was the best because of the dangerous c-pawn. But the countertactic is spectacular too.
Quote:
A friend of mine convinced me that there are no real winning chances here. White can simply move his king out into the open at first opportunity.
Still it is true that taking the rook was preferable to Rd4, which left more options open to white.
Quote:
…it seems like black has sufficient counterplay.
Taking into regard the poor position of the white king, an eternal check would be likely, for example: 43. a5 Nd4 44. Qb7 Bg3 45. Qb2 Be5 46. Rc8+ Kg8 47. Qb6 Qh4 48. Rc8+ Kh7 49. Qd8 Qh1+ 50. Kf2 Nxf3 51. Qg8+ Kh6 52. gxf3 Bg3+.
After the gamemove it is a clear draw as well of course.
Quote:
And my opponent loudly declared "REMIS!" As I was in quite a nervous state and not sure whether I could trust my eyes, I let two more minutes run off the clock before accepting. (Which earned me a deeply disapproving look.)
Somehow, this sounds quite funny : letting an already frustrated Korchnoi suffer for another 2 minutes in impatient expectation of an obvious reply…
Upon analysis of the game I noticed that many variations seemed to lead to a drawn position, so I think that after the ‘positional stalemate’ that arose from the premature e5 push, the game could have well been within drawing boundaries all the time. I found the game incredibly complex: especially the tactical phase in the midgame deserves further attention. All in all a very enjoyable game which, additionally, has been a nice tactical training for me too. Thank you for the post with your annotations .
Meanwhile you may have achieved your FM title already. If not, I still wish you very much success in the coming weeks.
Quote:
I started this thread a long ago. I didn't know it became that popular. I will soon join your debate. Are you club players?
It seems you got a lot of reading up to do then, Fenix . Yes, we’re both clubplayers: I’m around 1800 ELO, while Lews is already beyond clublevel and approaching the 2300. Since you wrote you have been participating in a Croatian championship, I assume you are quite a strong chessplayer as well .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2004 03:56 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
thank you again for your good feedback!
Yes, 7.Qa4+ is an interesting idea in order to give the game totally independent character. I´m not sure what´s the best way to play the black position, but my favourite is 7.…Bd7 8. Qb3 b6 9. dxe6 fxe6, and possibly long castling later, if white forces Rh8-g8 at some point. With the whole of white´s kingside sleeping, this shouldn´t be too dangerous for black.
Quote:
You mentioned 11. …b4!? as an interesting alternative to 11. …0-0. It forces the knight to a less favorable square, but I doubt if that weighs up to the fact that white will be able to move his knight to c4. So I think that 11. …0-0 may indeed be a safer move.
Well, white can gain control of the c4 square whenever he wants, by playing a2-a4. So pushing b5-b4 immediately does make some sense for black, as white hasn´t played Qd1-c2 yet, to vacate the d1-square for his Nc3. White is forced to play 12.Na4, and now the big question is, whether the white knight´s placement there is good or bad.
The other aspect different to the main variation is the queenside pawn-structure, which is less closed and immobilized now than with a white pawn on a4.
Quote:
But still, I think that Ra7 would have been playable when 13. …g5 Bg3 had preceded this move. To me that seems to follow logically from the quote above and it has been played before with encouraging results.
Yes, that´s a good point.
Quote:
I agree that 14. … Rae7 15. e5 seems to favour white, but I have also looked at how vulnerable black is to the new tactical threat 14. …Qc7 15. Bxb5. Of course both you and Korchnoi have seen this combination, so I guess that after 15. …axb5 16. Nxb5 Qb6 17. Nxa7 Qxa7 the fact that white is tied to his a- and e-pawn while black can win a tempo with Ba6 is enough compensation for black’s slight material deficit?
In my opinion, taking on b5 can be dismissed on general grounds – the two minor pieces become very strong, while white´s extra pawns have a striking resemblance to the pair of Q-side weaknesses that white gets after accepting the Wolga-Gambit. I cannot see white´s pawns advancing without dropping off, neither on the queenside, nor in the centre.
Quote (regarding "20. Bxb5? runs into 20... axb5 21. Rxe5 Ng4")
Still the situation is not so clear I think, as with 20. Bxb5 a load of tactics are unleashed. [...] Although there are probably improvements in these variations, I assume that based on this last complex line you gave a ‘?’ to Bxb5?
I actually stopped calculating when I saw the large number of good-looking possibilities for black , didn´t check any more concrete variations. You´re right though that the most obvious continuation, 23. …Ne3, is not so clear when checked with Fritz.
In the 23. …Nxh2 line, it seems to me that after 24. Rf4, both 24. …Bg4 and 24. …Ng4 lead to black advantage, and there´s also the alternative 23.…Ba6!?, which cannot be too good for white either after for example 24.Rf4 Ne3 25.Qe4 b4.
Quote:
White’s 21. Qxe4 kept me thinking for quite a while too. Generally speaking, with so much pieces still on the board I’d rather have a knight in the centre of the board than a vulnerable queen.
But how do you protect the d5 pawn without withdrawing Ne4-c3, after 21.Wxe4 c4?
Quote:
I agree on this; you seem to have a very nice space advantage here and your bishop is way better than white’s too. With careful play, you may have succeeded in a positional crush.
Well. It might have been worth a try .
Quote:
Taking into regard the poor position of the white king, an eternal check would be likely, for example: 43. a5 Nd4 44. Qb7 Bg3 45. Qb2 Be5 46. Rc8+ Kg8 47. Qb6 Qh4 48. Rc8+ Kh7 49. Qd8 Qh1+ 50. Kf2 Nxf3 51. Qg8+ Kh6 52. gxf3 Bg3+.
Well, it´s impossible to calculate all of those tactics , but in my opinion it looks like the safest option to put the bishop to d4 on move 43, to both attack and defend on the g1-a7 diagonal.
Quote:
Somehow, this sounds quite funny : letting an already frustrated Korchnoi suffer for another 2 minutes in impatient expectation of an obvious reply…
And that wasn´t all to it . After the handshake he quickly made his signatures and ran away from the board, only to come back to me after a minute and shout at me:”Einmal im Leben! Einmal im Leben geben Sie Qualität gegen mich und machen Remis. Das war verloren. Total verloren!“ (in English: ‘Once in your life you sacrifice the exchange against me and make a draw. That was totally lost!’) – just to storm off again.
Quote:
Upon analysis of the game I noticed that many variations seemed to lead to a drawn position, so I think that after the ‘positional stalemate’ that arose from the premature e5 push, the game could have well been within drawing boundaries all the time.
Yes, I think so, too. Before Korchnoi played e4-e5, he may very well have been strategically winning, but after the situation in the centre was resolved, there weren´t any real winning chances for either side. Maybe the most realistic chance for either side to get an edge afterwards was my 24.…f5 possibility.
Quote:
Meanwhile you may have achieved your FM title already. If not, I still wish you very much success in the coming weeks.
Thank you , I´m not there yet, but I´m considering to play a 4 days double-rounds tournament at the end of May, in order to get the last few elo points. That will be the last opportunity to play some games with my (still) low April 2004 rating.
And I need to apologize again ... when I´m writing here at work, I always think of answering your IM, but unfortunately I opened and saved it at home - grrr. But as I´ve free for the next week, there won´t be any danger of this happening again until next tuesday .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 01:10 PM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
the HC crash seems to have eaten your last posting, but luckily I have kept at least two points that I was addressing (but lacked enough time to finish) in a textfile here at work:
Quote:
I am not so certain about the soundness of this line.
Yes, I just checked it with a chess program and found that you´re right . Too many tactical weaknesses, and not enough time to develop before they become a serious problem.
I must admit that I cannot find a really satisfying line for black at the moment, after 7.Qa4+. It´s highly annoying that after 7. ...Bd7 8.Qb3, black cannot play an active move like g7-g5 or Nb8-a6, and is instead forced to the ugly 8. ... b6. Looks like you´ve managed to improve on Viktor´s play .
Quote:
Ah, I see. In my opinion, the placement of the knight is certainly not very fortunate. A possible future may lie at b6, when at some point Nc4 is played (although I agree that this is highly speculative). On the other hand, white can play a3 [...]
Yes, the placement of the knight is worse, and the pawn formation is better than usual for white - but the big question is to what extend, each? As you already mentioned, the b6 square can be quite useful for white. Not only for a possible invasion, but also because black usually tries to compete for the c4 square by means of Nd7-b6.
White´s a2-a3 is a reasonable strategic idea, but does not look as dangerous as it is in some Benkö positions, as there´s a piece blocking the a-file, which means that black can respond a7-a5 and maintain control of the d4 square. (Which may not be necessary, as white´s pieces are not so well-placed here to make use of that square anyway.)
Still, as b4xa3 is not an option, it´s white who can decide whether the file is going to be open or closed, and that´s better than nothing.
In the game Mohr-Wahls, they played 13.0-0 Bd7 14.a3 Bb5 and the following complications look incredibly difficult for both sides. A reasonable alternative seems to be 13. …Re8 14.a3 a5 or 14.f4 Nbd7 – it all seems to be leading to quite playable Benoni positions.
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2004 02:35 AM |
|
|
Hello Lews,
Yesterday I have checked the computer on which I wrote the reply that was lost in the crash, but I'm afraid that I could retrieve only the first part. However, I think you already addressed the key points anyway. This was what I had written:
To comment on your previous post I consulted the databases a bit more in search of similar games. Unfortunately, the rather unorthodox move order of this game resulted in very few matches. However, I did find one very recent game that was exactly equal to yours; quite a coincidence, isn’t it  ? I envy you for having those games of you ‘immortalized’
Quote:
I´m not sure what´s the best way to play the black position, but my favourite is 7.…Bd7 8. Qb3 b6 9. dxe6 fxe6, and possibly long castling later, if white forces Rh8-g8 at some point. With the whole of white´s kingside sleeping, this shouldn´t be too dangerous for black.
I am not so certain about the soundness of this line. After white’s 10. 0-0-0, I think black has some serious problems with developing quickly, due to the weaknesses of d6, e6 and g6. Black’s dark bishop, for example, is bound at f8 and an attempt to relieve the pressure with g5 only increases the pressure against the weak backward pawn. After the ‘natural’ 10. …Nc6 white simply continues with 11. e3 and it is hard to see how black can keep up with development while preventing white from exploiting the weaknesses in his camp. Also, I’m not sure if black will really get the opportunity to castle long.
The variation where black plays 9. Bxe6 of course has the disadvantage that d5 is very weak and d6-d5 is well prevented, but in this line e6 and g6 are at least much less weak.
Quote:
Well, white can gain control of the c4 square whenever he wants, by playing a2-a4. So pushing b5-b4 immediately does make some sense for black, as white hasn´t played Qd1-c2 yet, to vacate the d1-square for his Nc3.White is forced to play 12.Na4, and now the big question is, whether the white knight´s placement there is good or bad.
The other aspect different to the main variation is the queenside pawn-structure, which is less closed and immobilized now than with a white pawn on a4.
Ah, I see. In my opinion, the placement of the knight is certainly not very fortunate. A possible future may lie at b6, when at some point Nc4 is played (although I agree that this is highly speculative). On the other hand, white can play a3 which I think disrupts the pawn formation more than when a4 is played (since a pawn advance in response is no option anymore now). And with knights at a4 and c4 and pawns at a3 and b2, blacks queenside pawns have become quite immobile too.
Quote:
In my opinion, taking on b5 can be dismissed on general grounds (...)
Good points, thank you for explaining .
Unfortunately this is all I could retrieve and you answered all of it quite thoroughly already.
Quote:
It´s highly annoying that after 7. ...Bd7 8.Qb3, black cannot play an active move like g7-g5 or Nb8-a6, and is instead forced to the ugly 8. ... b6.
I noticed that also the active move 8. ...exd5 fails in this line to Nxd5. In a game Uhlmann – Tringov however, the following line was played: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 e6 and now 8. Qa4+ could be met with 8. …Bd7 9. Qb3 exd5 10. cxd5 Qc7. This suggest that a different move order may deal with the problems that arise from 7. Qa4+. Maybe instead of 6. ...d6, 6. ...g5 was an option, because after 7. Bg3, 7. ...d6 should be ok, I think.
Quote:
In the game Mohr-Wahls, they played 13.0-0 Bd7 14.a3 Bb5 and the following complications look incredibly difficult for both sides.
Thank you for the explanation. I noticed that interesting game too and I find it remarkable that this was the only game out of 112(!) games in which 11. ...b4 was preferred. I can’t find a refutation though, so I think you’re right that this variation is indeed very playable for black.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2004 05:04 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
I remembered two more things that I had intended to write you in response:
"Damn, there goes my anonymity." and
"Congrats for your good results in the club championship. Judging from the chess understanding that you display here, I do not think you´ll have much trouble overstepping the 2000 mark, with some more tournament practice."
Quote:
Maybe instead of 6. …d6, 6. …g5 was an option, because after 7. Bg3, 7. d6 should be ok, I think.
That´s a very good suggestion again, only I think that after 6. …g5 7.Bg3, it´s inaccurate to play 7. …d6, as white can answer 8.e4 exd5 9.exd5! Bg7 10.Qa4+ Bd7 11.Qc2, with the intention to continue Bf1-d3 and Ng1-e2.
To justify the weakening of his kingside, black would have to play Nf6-h5xg3, but this is out of the question here: Ne2xg3 and Bd3-f5 secures f5 as a permanent knight´s outpost.
But this problem can be avoided by playing 7. …exd5 instead, and white has nothing better than transpose into a theory position after 8.cxd5 d6 9.e4 a6 10.a4 Bg7 11.Nf3 Nh5.
PS: I´m still working on my last round game, it´s very difficult to analyse, and even more so as I don´t have a better program than Fritz 5 at the moment. The most complicated part should be behind me though, so hopefully I can finish it in the next days.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2004 11:45 AM |
|
|
"You are making a second reply in a row in this topic. Your post count will not increase."
Hihi ... after at least 10 hours of work on this post, it´s funny to see that kind of spam filter work on me.
The last round game was very difficult to analyse, even more so than I expected. My opponent was an FM with an Elo rating of 2369. After the game, it´s been my impression that it had been a good one, but in fact it´s full of errors from both sides. I suppose it´s impossible to avoid them completely in such a complicated fight, but still I´d rather have seen a few less of them.
Probably not a very good game, but without any doubt it´s been a good fight.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
This came as a shock to me. My opponent usually plays the Tarrasch as black, which I was well prepared for. Against the QGA, I was intending to study the line that I played in this game, but unfortunately this was still "under construction" - I hardly had any theoretical knowledge of it yet. Still, I had no alternative but to go for it, as I could be quite sure that the black player had done some preparation against my old choice, 3.e4.
3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 a6 6.Qe2
The so-called Furman variation. The intention of this move is to avoid both the dull position with early queens exchange (which, like many dull systems, is played alot by Kramnik these days), and the complicated main line where black gets in both c7-c5 and b7-b5, and further makes the choice to either build a queenside majority or fight an IQP on d4.
6...c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.0-0 Nc6 9.e4 Qc7
With the idea to follow-up Nf6-g4, which takes control of the e5 square, and creates very unpleasant tactical threats.
The tactical justification for this opening line is 9...e5?? (If this were possible, black would have easy equality.) 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qc4+
In a game Lautier-Timman, there happened a nice tactical slugfest after 9...b5 10.Bb3 Nd4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 12.Be3! Qxe4 13.Nd2 Qf5 14.g4 Qe5 15.Nf3 Qe4 16.Ng5 Qc6 17.Rac1 Bb7 18.f3 Bxe3+ 19.Qxe3 Qd6 20.Nxe6! fxe6 21.Bxe6 Kf8 22.Rfd1 Qe7 23.g5 Re8 24.gxf6 gxf6 , and white could have gained a large advantage after 25.Re1 Rg8+ 26.Kf2 Rg7 27.Qf4 Qd8 28.Rc5 (Analysis by Khuzman)
10.e5 Nd7
A reasonable alternative is 10...Ng4 11.Bf4 f6 12.Nbd2 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 fxe5 14.Bg3 with good compensation for the pawn.
11.Bf4 b5 12.Bd3
Theory recommends 12.Bb3 here.
12...Bb7
(after 12...Nd4 , I would have considered 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Nd2 Bxb2 15.Ne4 Bxa1 16.Nd6+ Kf8 17.Rxa1 with very unclear play.)
13.a4?!
With the intention to activate Ra1 and create an additional target in black´s camp. Unfortunately, this leads to weaknesses and targets in my own position, too.
The move also gives me control of the c4 square, and if this were of importance, it might still be a good one. But here my knight already has a free road to e4, after which the a-rook may join the play on the c-file.
I would have reached that kind of promising position after the normal developing move 13.Nc3 (or 13.Nbd2).
13...Nb4
After 13...bxa4 , black seems to be able to reach equality with a number of precise moves: 14.Rxa4 Nb6 15.Ra1 Nb4 16.Be4 Bxe4 17.Qxe4 Qc6=
14.Be4
14.axb5 attempts to win a pawn, but hands over most of the dynamic potential to black: 14...Nxd3 15.Qxd3 axb5 16.Rxa8+ Bxa8 17.Nc3 (17.Qxb5 0-0 18.Qe2 Rb8 is nothing for white.) 17...b4 18.Nb5 Qb6 19.Nd6+ Bxd6 20.exd6 Bxf3 21.Qxf3 0-0 and I don´t think that white can break through black´s defences.
14...Nd5 15.Bg3
15.Bxd5 Bxd5 16.axb5? Bc4! solves white´s problems.
15...bxa4 16.Rxa4 Qb6!
Quite an unexpected move for me, but there is alot of sense behind it: Black steps out of the c-file and out of potential xd5 -> e5-e6 ideas, places the queen more actively and discourages Nb1-d2-c4 by attacking the b2 pawn.
If black simply prepares quick castling: 16...N7b6 17.Ra1 h6, white gets the kind of position that he wants: 18.Nbd2 0-0 19.Rfc1 and it´s very difficult to deal with the bind, as Qc7-e7 can always be answered by Bg3-h4.
17.Nc3
17.Nbd2 Qxb2 18.Rb1? Nc3
An interesting attempt ist 17.Na3!? , after which 17...Qb3! looks like the critical response. 18.Rc4 Bxa3 19.bxa3 Qxa3 20.Rb1 N7b6 21.Rxb6 Nxb6 22.Bxb7 Nxc4 23.Bxa8 Qc1+ 24.Qf1 Qxf1+ 25.Kxf1 Kd7 and although my old Fritz seems to like white, I´d rather be the one who pushes the a-pawn.
17...Nxc3 18.bxc3 Bxe4 19.Rxe4?!
Up to this point I had gathered a large advantage on the clock, but now this was leveled, as it took me about 45 minutes to decide which way to take back. 19.Qxe4 0-0 20.Ng5 g6 21.Qh4 h5 creates some kingside weaknesses, but as I didn´t find a way to exploit them, I didn´t want to arrange my pieces in such a disharmonious way.
Still, it seems to be the best chance to get anything at all out of the position, for example: 22.Ne4 Qc6 23.Rfa1 Rfb8 24.h3, and white keeps some initiative.
19...Be7?
19...0-0= Simple castling would have solved all of black´s problems. White´s pieces are all near the black king, but in no position to immediately create serious threats and force weaknesses. Black will just continue Rf8-c8 or Rf8-b8, and then either Bc5-f8 or Nd7-f8, depending on which square white intends to attack.
20.Bh4!
In this kind of structure, the exchange of dark bishops is favourable for white in general. The concrete position saw white´s bishops stranded on the rather passive square g3, black´s just having eaten up a tempo, and on top of this, white´s rook will take back on h4 and prevent castling. White has a serious advantage now.
20...Bxh4 21.Rxh4 h6
21...0-0? 22.Qd3
22.Rd1?
Too superficial. Black is able to move his knight away from the tactically vulnerable d7 square, after which he will be able to castle without any problems.
22.Rg4! is the move that keeps black´s king from castling into equality. 22...0-0 23.Qd2 and black is forced to play 23...f5 24.exf6 Nxf6 25.Rd4 with a lasting advantage for white.
22...Nc5 23.Qe3!?
I think this is a nice quiet semi-waiting move: Both black´s pieces on the queenside and his pawn targets on the kingside are on black aquares. From e3 the queen both binds black´s forces and prepares to provoke further weaknesses on the kingside. But my main idea was: 'I won´t be able to keep his king from castling, but now I´m threatening to do so by playing Rh4-g4. I´d like to create an air hole for my king, and I´d also like to exploit the new weakness in my opponent´s position.' Pushing g2-g4 would serve both of these goals, but this won´t make sense before black has castled.
All this sounds very nice, but unfortunately it does not work. In fact white´s not threatening anything.
23...Rc8?
After the correct 23...0-0 , it was my intention to play 24.Rb4 Qc7 25.g4 , pretending to have an attack. The problem: White´s g4-g5 can always be answered by h6-h5, after which it´s not black who has his kingside seriously weakened. I might have tried to play h2-h4-h5 first, but this looks too slow - black can push his a-pawn in the meantime, and play f7-f6 if a real threat to his king should appear. The position is equal, unless black runs into the trap: 25...Rfd8?! 26.Rdd4 and after a neutral move like 26...a5? , white wins: 27.Rbc4! Rf8 28.Rd6 Rac8 29.Nd2 and there´s no escape from the pin.
24.Rg4± Now white has a large advantage. Black is forced to make a serious concession on the kingside, after which he will not be able to castle anymore.
With both players´ time becoming scarce (around 20 minutes for the next 16 moves), the game now entered a more intuitive phase.
24...Qb3 25.Re1 g6 26.Rb4
The immediate 26.Nd2 would have been more precise.
26...Qd5 27.Rd4 Qb3?
28.Nd2 would have happened in any case, so the queen had to move out of the knight´s path - to c6 or a2. Now white´s position must be winning. 28.Nd2+- Qc2 29.Rc4?
I thought I would win immediately now, underestimating black´s defense. 29.Nc4+- and white is winning easily.
29...Rd8 30.Rd4
30.Rxc5 Qxd2 31.Qxd2 Rxd2 32.Rc8+ Rd8 33.Rxd8+ Kxd8 34.Ra1+=
30...Rxd4 31.cxd4 Nd3 32.Rf1 Nb4 33.Ne4 Nd5?
Did he forget about the castling rule? For the third time, this was the saving move, and for the third time my opponent missed his chance. 33...0-0 34.Rc1 Qd3 35.Nf6+ Kg7 36.Qf4 and white only has a small advantage.
34.Nd6+ Kf8 35.Qf3 Qc7
F7 cannot be succesfully defended anymore.
36.Rb1 Kg7 37.g3 Rf8 38.Rb7 Qc1+ 39.Kg2 Nc7 40.d5?!
40.Qf6+ Kh7 41.Qe7 Qc6+ 42.Kh3+- would have been easiest, but as there wasn´t much time left on both players´ clocks, closing the diagonal seemed to make sense.
40...exd5?
40...Kg8 41.dxe6 fxe6 42.Qe4 Kh7 with some drawing chances would have been best.
41.Qf6+ Kg8 42.Qe7
This doesn´t spoil anything, but 42.Nxf7+- is much easier.
42...Ne6 43.Nxf7 Nf4+ 44.gxf4 Qxf4
A nice last resource that came unexpected - I had been sure that my opponent would resign at any moment. But after some thinking I found the only way to prevent both the loss of my knight and the perpetual check.
45.Qe6 Qe4+
45...Rxf7 46.Qxg6+ Kf8 47.Rb8+ Ke7 48.Qd6#
46.Kg3 Qd3+ 47.f3 h5 48.Ng5+ 1-0
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 03:36 AM |
|
|
Hello Lews,
After more than a week of preliminary examinations I finally finished my analysis of your game. I too found the game quite complicated, especially because it features a type of opening that I am completely unfamiliar with. I do have some experience with IQP skirmishes (for example after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 dxc4 or 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. d4 cxd5 5. Nf3 cxd4) and occasionally I encounter a position with a queenside majority, but the kind of setup in this game is new to me. When looking through the databases however, I noticed that you continuously chose from the soundest lines available.
Quote:
9. …Qc7
With the idea to follow-up Nf6-g4, which takes control of the e5 square, and creates very unpleasant tactical threats.
I recognize this type of position from the Smith-Morra gambit, where white must be wary not to fall into the Siberian trap: 10. …Ng4 11. h3?? Nd4 0-1.
Quote:
12. Bd3
Theory recommends 12.Bb3 here.
At first, I didn’t really see a clear advantage of Bb3 over Bd3. After all, I think the b1-h7 diagonal can be a very important one, due to the classical bishop sac when black castles too early. But it seems to me that the biggest disadvantage is the Nc6-b4-d5 manoeuvre that your opponent executed in the game, which strengthened his grip on the important d5 square. Nevertheless I must say that for a line that is still “under construction” a first deviation from theory on move 12 is not bad at all .
Quote:
(after 12...Nd4 , I would have considered 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Nd2 Bxb2 15.Ne4 Bxa1 16.Nd6+ Kf8 17.Rxa1 with very unclear play.)
I think this is nothing for black. I could not find a way for him to avoid a significant disadvantage. For example: 17. …Nb6 18. Rc1 Qd7 19. Qc2 and I don’t see black escaping from the bind. Also the rook on h8 has no future. Therefore I think that black can better play 14. …Bxb2 15. Ne4 Bxe5 16. Rc1 and now both 16. …Qb6 or 16. …Bxf4 will give him better chances than in the previous line (although here too it is highly debatable if he has sufficient compensation).
Quote:
13.a4?!
With the intention to activate Ra1 and create an additional target in black´s camp. Unfortunately, this leads to weaknesses and targets in my own position, too.
I think that the equalizing line with 13. …bxa4 that you gave, exactly shows the problems of 13. a4: black wins some time while his weaknesses are not really that much more salient than white’s. I think that an earlier a4 as a prophylaxis would be more justified.
Quote:
14.axb5 attempts to win a pawn, but hands over most of the dynamic potential to black (…) and I don´t think that white can break through black´s defences.
Still, white has achieved a position that seems to be slightly better, though I agree that it may not be enough for a win.
Quote:
15.Bxd5 Bxd5 16.axb5? Bc4! solves white´s problems.
My compliments if you saw that during the game.
Quote:
An interesting attempt is 17.Na3!? , after which 17...Qb3! looks like the critical response. 18.Rc4 Bxa3 19.bxa3 Qxa3 20.Rb1 N7b6 21.Rxb6 Nxb6 22.Bxb7 Nxc4 23.Bxa8 Qc1+ 24.Qf1 Qxf1+ 25.Kxf1 Kd7 and although my old Fritz seems to like white, I´d rather be the one who pushes the a-pawn.
Although I got a computer program that is even worse than your old Fritz (it even keeps missing those classic bishop sacs  ), it also prefers white here. Personally I find it very hard to judge. It is clear that white’s short term plan should be to get his dark bishop into play but after that I do not know how to best continue. There is some sense for example in trying to exchange knights to profit more from the bishop pair. On the other hand, white could also try to block the a-pawn and then trade the bishop that is of the opposite colour that the pawn is on. I assume that white should also try to avoid exchanging pawns to prevent lines from getting opened.
I found it intriguing to see how the success of the classical bishop sac depends on small coincidences. After 18. Rc4, the immediate 18. …0-0 is not possible because of 19. Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Ng5+ Kg8 21. Qh5 Qd3 (N5f6 22. exf6 Nxf6 23. Qh3 +-) 22. Rh4 1-0.
However, after 18. Rc4 Rc8 19. Rfc1, 19. …0-0 should not be answered immediately with 20. Bxh7+ as 20. …Kxh7 21. Ng5+ Kg8 22. Qh5 can be met with Qd3 23. Rd1 (23. Rh4?? Bxf2+ 0-1) Qg6 24. Qxg6 fxg6 25. Nxe6 Bxa3 26. Rxc8 Rxc8 27. bxa3 and I think black has an advantage. After 18. Rc4 Rc8 19. Rfc1 0-0 20. Bc2 however, the queen has to move and now the sacrifice does become possible again.
Quote:
Up to this point I had gathered a large advantage on the clock, but now this was leveled, as it took me about 45 minutes to decide which way to take back.
Things like these happen to me too often as well. I myself have made up my mind to prevent thinking over one move too long, realizing that the chance is much bigger that I lose in the time pressure phase that follows it, than that spending a few minutes less on that move would lead to a horrible mistake.
Quote:
19.Qxe4 0-0 20.Ng5 g6 21.Qh4 h5 creates some kingside weaknesses, but as I didn´t find a way to exploit them, I didn´t want to arrange my pieces in such a disharmonious way.
An interesting idea is 21. h4 as 21. …h5? fails to 22. Rb1 Qc7 23. Nxe6 ++-. In terms of practical play I think it is not that easy to play black, although the position is unclear.
Quote:
Still, it seems to be the best chance to get anything at all out of the position, for example: 22.Ne4 Qc6 23.Rfa1 Rfb8 24.h3, and white keeps some initiative.
Nevertheless I agree with you that this line is not very satisfying either. I as well can’t find a better move than 23. Rfa1, but since the rook at a4 was already protected and it doesn’t contribute to a planned kingside attack, it is not the kind of move you eagerly wish to play.
Quote:
Black will just continue Rf8-c8 or Rf8-b8, and then either Bc5-f8 or Nd7-f8, depending on which square white intends to attack.
That is a very useful defensive technique. Thank you for the explanation .
Quote:
In this kind of structure, the exchange of dark bishops is favourable for white in general.
This is a serious and obvious fault indeed…with a pawn on f2 but especially e5 the bishop is certainly very bad. I think black should have admitted his mistake and answered Bh4 with Bc5. Also 20. …Nc5 21. Rb4 Qc7 22. Bxe7 Qxe7 was better than the textmove.
Quote:
22.Rg4! is the move that keeps black´s king from castling into equality.
Absolutely. And as I see few alternatives for 22. …0-0, the mentioned variation would have been very likely to occur.
Quote:
23.Qe3!?
But my main idea was: 'I won´t be able to keep his king from castling, but now I´m threatening to do so by playing Rh4-g4.
I looked at other moves to prevent direct castling, especially 23. Qc2 which would white give an advantage after 23. …0-0 24. Ng5 Rfd8 25. Rb1. However, 23. Qc2 can be met with 23. …Rd8 and white does not seem to be able to preserve a substantial advantage. Since black can also safely castle after 23. Qe3 as appears from the variation you posted, my conclusion is that after 22. Rd1 instead of 22. Rg4 the strategy of a kingside attack is not effective anymore. Still, I think that from a practical point of view 23. Qe3 is a great move (as actually became clear in the game) but objectively I think white must be satisfied with a regrouping of his forces. In my opinion possible plans include getting a positional and spatial advantage by doubling rooks over the d-file, moving a piece to d6, trying to bind the queen to the knight and creating an air hole for the king, though I doubt if white will have a lasting advantage. For example: 23. Rb4 Qc7 24. Rc4 0-0 25. Qe3 Rfc8 and white surely exerts pressure on black’s position.
Quote:
28.Nd2 would have happened in any case, so the queen had to move out of the knight´s path - to c6 or a2.
Following that logic, black should have immediately played 26. …Qa2 instead of 26. …Qd5 as I think the rook is positioned better at d4 than at b4. After 27. …Qa2 instead of Qb3 white’s advantage is indeed significant as well, but at least the immediate 28. Nd2 can be answered by 28. …Nb3.
Quote:
29.Rc4?
I thought I would win immediately now, underestimating black´s defense. 29.Nc4+- and white is winning easily.
You’re right of course, for example: 29. Nc4 0-0 30. Nd6 Rb8 31. Rd2 Qb1 32. h4 and h6 cannot be saved, leading to an untenable position of the king. But I can imagine that this line looks less attractive when under time pressure you think you can win a piece.
Quote:
30.Rxc5 Qxd2 31.Qxd2 Rxd2 32.Rc8+ Rd8 33.Rxd8+ Kxd8 34.Ra1+=
I think it was indeed the right choice to prevent him from fleeing in this rook endgame, as with your time pressure winning this endgame can be quite a task (though my computer disagrees with me).
Quote:
32.Rf1
Although I can understand that you want to keep your pieces protected under these circumstances, I think this is too passive. Black gets the opportunity to castle artificially: 32. Rf1 Kf8 33. Ne4 Kg7 34. Qf3 Rf8. Playing 32. Ra1 might have been better.
Quote:
For the third time, this was the saving move, and for the third time my opponent missed his chance.
I think that even at this point the variation where f7 is attacked is forced, so one may well say that his was his last real chance.
Quote:
40.Qf6+ Kh7 41.Qe7 Qc6+ 42.Kh3+- would have been easiest (…)
You can say that again. My computer gives a score of more than +5 .
Quote:
40...Kg8 41.dxe6 fxe6 42.Qe4 Kh7 with some drawing chances would have been best.
As white, I’d rather play 40. …Kg8 41. dxe6 fxe6 42. Qd3 Kh7 (42. …Qc6+ 43. Kh3 Kg7 44. Qc4 +-) 43. Qxa6 and black’s drawing chances are not very real.
Quote:
A nice last resource that came unexpected
And a spectacular one too; surely a worthy way to lose. Good thing that this happened after the 40th move.
All in all a very enjoyable game, though the opening play started out somewhat symmetric. You wrote that it was probably not a very good game, but I think you don’t need to worry too much about the level of the games that you post. Until now all games have taught me certain things and this one is no exception . I think the easiest way to improve in this game was to spend less time thinking at move 19. If you had thought for 15 instead of 45 minutes there, I’m sure you would have played 29. Nc4 instead of 29. Rc4?
I hope this analysis was worth the time you had to wait for it. I felt that it was more appropriate to continue working on it after my preliminary examinations than to scamp it in a few days, but I can imagine that you were wondering already .
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 10:58 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 9 Jun 2004
|
As white, I’d rather play 40. …Kg8 41. dxe6 fxe6 42. Qd3 Kh7 (42. …Qc6+ 43. Kh3 Kg7 44. Qc4 +-) 43. Qxa6 and black’s drawing chances are not very real.
Check out the 42. ... Qc6+ 43. Kh3 Kh7 line. That loses for black too, but is slightly better :-)
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 06:00 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
yes, that was surely worth the wait ... thank you for the large number of good ideas and suggestions!
Quote: But it seems to me that the biggest disadvantage is the Nc6-b4-d5 manoeuvre that your opponent executed in the game
Yes, I agree that this is probably what makes 12.Bb3 preferable.
Quote:I think this is nothing for black.[...]Therefore I think that black can better play 14. …Bxb2 15. Ne4 Bxe5 16. Rc1 and now both 16. …Qb6 or 16. …Bxf4 will give him better chances than in the previous line
You´´re completely right here, taking the exchange leads to a position where white has overwhelming compensation. Taking the pawn on e5 instead is much better. It seems to me that 16.…Qb6 is rather dangerous, and even more so if the 'human factor' is taken into consideration. After 17.Be3 Qb8 18.f4 Bc7 19.Bd4 I´d rather not have to defend black´s material advantage.
The other suggestion is much safer: 16. …Bxf4 17.Rxc7 Bxc7 18.Qc2 Be5 19.Qc6 Rb8 20.Nc5 Ke7 21.Nxd7 Bxd7 22.Qxa6 with an equal position.
Quote:Although I got a computer program that is even worse than your old Fritz, [...] it also prefers white here.
I briefly tried to make a sensible analysis of the endgame, but it´s just too many possible variations. I think white´s problem is: The minor pieces are not well placed, and after one bad move, the a-pawn could become very dangerous.
On the other hand, even if white manages to win the pawn, he is rather unlikely to win the endgame, with 4 vs. 4 pawns on the kingside.
For a computer, considerations of this kind don´t exist - he does not really understand whether an advantage is convertable or not.
Quote:An interesting idea is 21. h4 as 21. …h5? fails to 22. Rb1 Qc7 23. Nxe6 ++-. In terms of practical play I think it is not that easy to play black, although the position is unclear.
That´s not an interesting idea, it´s a very good idea! If I had seen the refutation of 21.…h5, I certainly would have gone for the 21.h4! line. In my opinion, white has not only a very dangerous position, but also objectively some advantage here, for example after 21. …Be7 22.Rb1 Qd8 23.Rd4.
Quote:This is a serious and obvious fault indeed…with a pawn on f2 but especially e5 the bishop is certainly very bad. I think black should have admitted his mistake and answered Bh4 with Bc5. Also 20. …Nc5 21. Rb4 Qc7 22. Bxe7 Qxe7 was better than the textmove.
After 20.…Bc5, I don´t really think that black´s bishop is the better piece. Bh4-f6 motives are hanging over black´s head. White can play 21.Qd2, and I find it hard already to suggest a reasonable move.
But you´re right about 20.…Nc5, that´s certainly black´s best move here. I don´t think that 21.Rb4 leads to anything for white now. Better in my opinion is 21.Rg4 Bxh4 22.Rxh4 h6, and now I have won a tempo for 23.Nd2 0-0 24.Nc4. The Nd6 isn´t as threatening as one would like it to be, but it still should be enough for a +=.
Quote:For example: 23. Rb4 Qc7 24. Rc4 0-0 25. Qe3 Rfc8 and white surely exerts pressure on black’s position.
I´m not sure, black can push his a-pawn and step out of the bind once it gets unpleasant. I think though that the immediate 23.Nd2 may be enough for a slight advantage again. It´s the same position as above, but with an extra move Rf1-d1 for white.
Quote:Although I can understand that you want to keep your pieces protected under these circumstances, I think this is too passive. Black gets the opportunity to castle artificially: 32. Rf1 Kf8 33. Ne4 Kg7 34. Qf3 Rf8. Playing 32. Ra1 might have been better.
Yes, that´s a good point. I agree.
Quote:As white, I’d rather play 40. …Kg8 41. dxe6 fxe6 42. Qd3 Kh7 (42. …Qc6+ 43. Kh3 Kg7 44. Qc4 +-) 43. Qxa6 and black’s drawing chances are not very real.
I´m not so sure about the 42.…Qc6+ 43.Kh3 Kg7 44.Qc4 line. Black plays 44.…Qxc4 45.Nxc4 Rf7, and then Rf7-e7 and Nc7-d5. May be winning, but doesn´t look so easy to me.
Got some urgent work to do here now ... maybe I´ll be able to post my recent loss against IM Meijers in a Maroczy tomorrow.
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Check out the 42. ... Qc6+ 43. Kh3 Kh7 line. That loses for black too, but is slightly better :-)
Yes, you’re quite right, csarmi. The knight does not pose tactical threats against the king on h7, so black can indeed still put up a fight for a draw.
Hello Lews,
I think that for the largest part we agree on the analysis of the game, but I still have a few minor remarks.
Quote:
The other suggestion is much safer: 16. …Bxf4 17.Rxc7 Bxc7 18.Qc2 Be5 19.Qc6 Rb8 20.Nc5 Ke7 21.Nxd7 Bxd7 22.Qxa6 with an equal position.
You’re absolutely right that 16. …Bxf4 is preferable to 16. …Qb6, but even then I think that black must follow the road to equalization very carefully. After 16. …Bxf4 17.Rxc7 Bxc7 18. Ng5, white already has the nasty threat Qf3 at his disposal. Natural moves fail: after 18. …Bb7, white has 19. Nxe6! And after 18. …Nf6, 19, Qc2 looks unpleasant. On the other hand, a move such as 18. …Ra7 is not really satisfying either. I’m sure that with good play, black can eventually get a nice position, but it doesn’t seem very easy to achieve this behind the board.
Quote:
I briefly tried to make a sensible analysis of the endgame, but it´s just too many possible variations.
It’s these kind of positions that make me realize I should study some books about endgames, as I am generally lost when it comes to the objectives that I should try to accomplish. Still, I think you are right that black does not really have to fear a loss here.
Quote:
In my opinion, white has not only a very dangerous position, but also objectively some advantage here, for example after 21. …Be7 22.Rb1 Qd8 23.Rd4.
Well, at least black’s source of counterplay is less apparent than white’s pressure on the kingside. But I think you’re right and I much rather play white here too. By the way, with help of the computer I found a spectacular variation even though it is certainly not forced: 21. …Qc7 22. h5 Nf6 23. exf6 Qxg3 24. Nxe6 fxe6 25. Rc4 Qd6 26. hxg6 Rc8 27. gxh7 Kh8 28. Qg6 Rc7 and the game can go either way.
Quote:
White can play 21.Qd2, and I find it hard already to suggest a reasonable move.
I agree; castling is well prevented for black and his kingside will be weakened soon without him being able to do much about it.
Quote:
Better in my opinion is 21.Rg4 Bxh4 22.Rxh4 h6, and now I have won a tempo for 23.Nd2 0-0 24.Nc4. The Nd6 isn´t as threatening as one would like it to be, but it still should be enough for a +=.
21. Rg4 is probably better indeed. In the game you suggested Rg4 as an improvement on Rd1. Now that black has an extra tempo, this Rg4 is not so strong anymore. I think that this the most important gain for black. I agree that white is still better now, although black must of course be better here than in the actual game.
Quote:
I think though that the immediate 23.Nd2 may be enough for a slight advantage again. It´s the same position as above, but with an extra move Rf1-d1 for white.
You’re right, especially because of course white’s extra move means a significant improvement on his position.
Quote:
I´m not so sure about the 42.…Qc6+ 43.Kh3 Kg7 44.Qc4 line. Black plays 44.…Qxc4 45.Nxc4 Rf7, and then Rf7-e7 and Nc7-d5. May be winning, but doesn´t look so easy to me.
Luckily, white has the tactical resource 46. Nd6 Re7 47. Rxc7 at his disposal. Still, you were right that if back plays 43. … Kh7, as csarmi suggested, black may hope for some drawing chances.
I am very much looking forward to your Maroczy game. Not only because I encounter it often myself, but also because I don’t perform that well against it since I do not understand that much of the opening. By the way, I also dumped my Benkö gambit for the modern Benoni. On second thought it didn’t really make sense to keep playing the Benkö, as the pawn structure of the Benoni is similar and I studied that opening quite a lot for your games. But above all I noticed that the modern Benoni is really a lot of fun to play and leads to great games. So I guess all the main variations in my black repertory are equal to what you play, now. I don’t think I will exchange 1. e4 for 1. d4 though .
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted June 17, 2004 04:49 PM |
|
|
|
No there is no drawing chance in what I said, it loses in a few moves :-)
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2004 04:50 PM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
yes, I agree with what you wrote, and that Ne4-g5 after the Queen sac is a nice idea, although Ra8-b8 seems to lead to equality.
Regarding the 47.Rxc7 tactic, in the database at work here I have the king standing on h7, so I suppose this time it´s a typo and not a mistake in my analysis. (Yeah, lame excuse I know .)
The bad news is that I have somehow lost all of my notations from the tournament. Today I have received an email with the "complete" games as pgn and cbv files, but two of mine are missing. One is the first round, which I was able to reconstruct from memory. The other is the Maroczy game against Meijers .
I tried to do some reconstruction work on this, but it´s hopeless ... too many unusual and weird-looking moves from both players. I asked the tournament director for the formular, maybe he´ll send it by postal mail (that seems to be the only hope left).
Well, but instead of posting nothing at all, I´ll show you a miniature that doesn´t require much comment ... and features my first Nimzo-Indian game in at least 12 years (during which I played 3.g3 or 3.Nf3 stuff instead). My opponent had a national rating of 1907.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 Bb7 6.Nd2 d5? 7.Qa4+ Nc6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.e3 Be7?? 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Ba6 Qc8 12.Nxd5 0–0 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Bxb7 Qxb7 15.Ne4 b5 16.Nxf6+ Kg7 17.Nh5+ Kh6 18.Qd1 Nxd4 19.Qxd4 Rad8 20.Qh4 1–0
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2004 02:19 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 25 Jun 2004
|
Hello Lews,
It’s truly very unfortunate that you lost that Maroczy game, as I was really curious to see an annotated game where you played the accelerated dragon  . Hopefully the tournament director can still retrieve it. But meanwhile I checked your excellent miniature.
The Nimzo-Indian and Queen’s Indian openings are again quite unfamiliar to me, but from what I saw in the databases they are openings that could fit me fairly well too (though I enjoy playing the modern benoni too much to switch). I did notice however that black has to know many branches of theory to play it. The 6. Nd2 line that you chose seems to be an example of that (and it looks like it scores nicely, too). I would have chosen for 5. Qb3 though, as developing the queen with tempo to a good square looks very attractive to me and the move performs very well. But this is probably more of a personal preference.
If I understood correctly, 6. …d5 is marked with a ‘?’ because it blocks the diagonal while black’s pieces cannot really take advantage of the d4 square. But I must say that 9. …Be7 was quite cleverly refuted. Very nice tactic, I must keep that pattern in mind. I think he should have better played 9. 0-0. And the remaining technical task was performed flawlessly; great game from your side  .
If you don’t have any other games available to post right now, that is no problem, of course. But when you feel like posting an other analysis, I’ll be the first to jump on it .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2004 03:53 AM |
|
|
Hallo Wub,
and thank you - I was quite happy, too, that my Nimzo-premiere went so well. The line that I chose to study is an unusual one for an amateur player (this may be one reason, though hopefully not the only one, for its good score), because it has so many different aspects and types of positions. But I found that by coincidence, it fits very well into my opening repertoire (unlike any other line in the Nimzo corresponds perfectly with my Catalan), and thanks to my move-order (3.Nf3 and only 4.Nc3), the important theory branch where black doesn´t play b7-b6 is very unlikely to appear. In fact, I had it on the board no more than two or three times in more than 100 Nimzo blitz games.
Yes, 5.Qb3 is a good move, too, probably of about the same quality. The one I chose, 5.Nd2, has some very nice psychological aspects though: Those who play the opening as black usually enjoy to have those active and creative Nimzo-Indian positions on the board, and not a rather passive Tartakower Queen´s Gambit like. And their problem is that playing the Nimzo-move 5. ...c5 after 5.Nd2 means accepting a minus tempo, because in the "normal" theory lines of that kind, white plays e2-e3, f2-f3, e2-e4, while 5.Nd2 enables him to omit e2-e3.
The question mark for 6. ...d5 is given because white is able to severely misplace black´s knight by playing 7.Qa4+. Playing for d7-d5 is reasonable here for black, as I explained above, but it had to be prepared by castling.
6. ...0-0 and 7. ...c7-c5 do not go well together. In those lines where the centre becomes closed, the king is safer in the centre, when black can decide to keep it there or castle either side, depending on white´s further play.
And you are right that instead of 9. …Be7, 9. …0-0 was the correct move. After that, I have a position somewhere in the no-man´s-land between += and +/-, but nothing is decided yet.
The funny thing is, a few days ago I found out that in my opening book there´s an almost identical game on master level between Pert and Aagaard. Only difference is that there was an interposition of h7-h6 and Bg5-h4, and that black immediately resigned after Bf1-a6.
And I have some good news as well : I received Meijer´s formular per Fax, and after some difficult work I was able to reconstruct every move. The bad news is that looking on it with Fritz very quickly revealed some rather bad mistakes. Difficult to play good chess at the afternoon of a double-round ...
At the moment my spare time is somewhat limited, but I´ll try to analyse and comment it in the next two weeks.
Two other games may be worth looking at, too - one of them even was another Accelerated Dragon. Well, I´ll see what I can do ...
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 28, 2004 04:18 AM |
|
|
A man's just gotta love you two. With all that awfully polite romantic style "Hallo Wub", "Hallo Lews"... Your persistance, devoteness to chess are amazing.
Your post are fun to read even for those who don't know a thing about chess.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
