First a little background information and statistics. The Tuesday before I left, July 2nd, there was a friendly argument between Peter (the head of the Charlotte Chess Center) and myself about whether or not outside circumstances factor into one's ability to play decent chess. My argument was that it does, and the GMs that operate the Quality Chess publishing site even go as far as saying physical exercise and being in shape factors in as well as mental state, and Peter's argument was that it does not. Well, in the first six months of 2019, I have dealt with my best friend (and best man at my wedding 13 years ago) suffering an aneurysm and a stroke, where it wasn't even known if he would make it (I'm proud to say that he's recovering far more rapidly and successfully than expected), physical pain in the calves and feet with 2 months of physical therapy, three trips to the ER for my daughter (two due to health, one due to injury), and extreme stress at work in March, May, and June. It has been an extremely stressful first half of the year, and my performance over the board has been horrible the first six months of 2019. I played pathetically at Land of the Sky in January, bad in all games but one in the Charlotte Open in June, and numerous other one day tournaments and games at the club Tuesday night where playing well was the exception, not the rule. About the only strong performance I've had in the first half of the year was the Club Championship in April. Keep in mind, only the player really knows how he did. You can play well and lose, you can play lousy and win, and if you need proof of that, just look at the last article I wrote before this one, a game that I won that was littered with errors, and I remember that night walking away with a bad taste in my mouth that night, despite the win.
Well, it was a different story with these two tournaments. My family and I went to Dollywood the first half of the first week, which was a lot of fun, and then while the wife and daughter went to Chicago for a month to see her parents, I went to Iowa on Thursday, gambled a little and otherwise relaxed on Friday. I had been out of work for a full week at this point. I was fully relaxed and actually felt ready to play on Saturday, and my play in these two tournaments showed that compared to the first six months of the year. After Des Moines, I went to gamble and played in a number of poker tournaments in Battle Creek, MI, placing in the money in the Pot-Limit Omaha and No-Limit Holdem hybrid tournament, and finally concluded the two week trip with the tournament in Lansing, MI before coming back home. By no means did I play like a Grandmaster, and probably should have lost four of the ten games I played, but outside of one game out of the ten, which I will leave the suspicion looming until the article for that round is written and you'll get a laugh at how NOT to play chess, I actually feel like I played well by amateur standards. The games I either lost or drew, except one of course, were ones where the mistakes made were "typical amateur mistakes" that you can learn something from, not sheer stupidity like many of my losses were in the previous six months, and so I think one can conclude that exterior factors, especially mental, do play a role in how well one is able to play.
As far as statistics, I finished with a total of seven points in ten games, including six wins, two draws, and two losses. The Black/White split was equal, playing five games with each color. For those of you interested in specific openings, what you will see over the course of this article and the following nine include Three Frenches (which will be published under the French Connection series), Three King's Indians, a Double Fianchetto, a King's Gambit, a King's Indian Attack, and a Scandinavian. There were games with wild tactics, some found and some missed, and there were also a number of positional grinds, with the shortest game being 28 moves and the longest one being 78 moves, and so there will hopefully be something of interest for everyone over the course of these ten articles.
So without further ado, let's take a look at the first round of the Des Moines Open.
Des Moines Open, Round 1
W: Adv Kodipparambil (1660)
B: Patrick McCartney (1996)
King's Indian Defense, Fianchetto Variation
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Nf3 O-O 5.g3 d6 6.Bg2 c6 7.O-O Bf5 8.b3 Ne4 9.Bb2 Nxc3 10.Bxc3 Be4
So what we have here is a book line of the Fianchetto King's Indian with both sides playing strong moves. Let's take a look at the various factors of the position, which will explain all the main points behind this specific line of the Fianchetto King's Indian.
What can be said about White's and Black's position and why were the moves that each side made played?
- The first thing to notice is that White has a space advantage. White's Pieces and Pawns span across four ranks whereas Black's span across only three ranks.
- The lack of space explains Black's idea. He traded off a set of Knights, and with his last move, White has no way to avoid the trade of another set of minor pieces. When you have a space disadvantage, you typically want to trade pieces so that the other pieces are not crowded and tripping over each other. Now it should be added that while Black would like to trade pieces more than White would, there is probably one set of minor pieces that White specifically would benefit from trading, and that's the Dark-Squared Bishops.
- The downside to Black's idea is notice that he moved his King's Knight twice and then followed that up with initiating the Knight trade on c3. He who initiates a trade always loses a tempo. Then, his Bishop has also moved twice, to f5 and then e4, and Black will likely be the one to initiate that trade. This leads to a loss of time for Black. Yes, as the previous bullet mentions, Black isn't suffering a crowded, cramped position, but because of these extra moves with the two minor pieces, he is behind White in development.
Therefore, White's position is probably slightly better here in this line due to the advantage in space and lead in development, but no more than that.
11.Qd2
As mentioned previously, Black would like to trade the Dark-Squared Bishops, but he can't do it yet as advancing the d-pawn would cause the Bishop to hang, and so White is looking to advance d5. Therefore, Black's next move comes to mind. How does one prevent d5 by White on his next move?
11...d5
By playing 11...d5 himself!
12.Rac1
Black weakened e5 with his last move, and White should seriously think about 12.Ne5 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 and White maintains a very slight, but nagging advantage. Note that taking on d5 is not good, and after 12.cxd5?!, Black should respond with 12...Qxd5! There is no easy way to harass the Black Queen, and after 13.Nh4 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Rd8, Black has fully equalized.
12...e6 13.Rfd1 Re8
Not a bad move, but to keep the c3-Bishop passive, Black should consider 13...a5 here, as it keeps the White Bishop off of b4.
14.Qf4
With the annoying threat of something like 15.Ng5 with dual annoying threats on f7 and the Bishop on e4.
14...f6
So Black plays the prophylactic move, preventing the White Knight from coming forward.
15.Bh3
White specifically goes out of his way to avoid the Bishop trade, but it wastes a lot of time and benefits Black. Preferable was 15.h4, trying to further soften Black's Pawn cover around his King.
15...Bxf3
At first glance, it looks like this trade is necessary as otherwise, White can move the Knight, and then eventually trap the Bishop. However, it turns out this is not true, and the trade of Bishop for Knight is not necessary. After a move like 15...Nd7, if White tries to trap the Bishop with something like 16.Nd2, intending f3, Black can play 16...g5 with approximate equality.
16.Qxf3 f5
So now the position resembles a Stonewall Dutch type of positon, but with Black's bad Bishop gone. The White Bishop on h3 is mis-placed, but the Bishop pair and lead in development both mean something, and White is slightly better. Therefore, it would have been better for White to not trade off the Bishop for the Knight.
17.Qd3 Nd7 18.Bg2 Rc8
Both sides spent the last two moves relocating the worst placed pieces.
19.f3
This move is not best. If you observe Black's pieces, they all point at the center, and Black is practically ready to play either ...e5 or ...c5 himself. There is little covering the Kingside. Rather than trying for an e4 break, better would be to play something like 19.h4, or maybe play on the Queenside with 19.a4. There are many options for White that can maintain him a very slight but nagging advantage, but in addition to fighting where Black's strength is, White also weakened the dark squares around the King, particularly the g1-h7 diagonal.
19...Qb6
Black also gains full equality after 19...Nf6 20.e4 fxe4 21.fxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxe4 dxe4 23.Qxe4 Qd6.
20.Kh1
No better is 20.e4 c5 21.exd5 exd5 22.f4 cxd4 23.Bxd5+ Kf8 as White is now forced to play something like 24.Bb2 with equality. Note that 24.Bxd4?? loses to 24...Bxd4+ 25.Qxd4 Re1+ 26.Kg2 Qxd4 27.Rxd4 Rxc1.
20...c5 21.cxd5?
This tactical mistake is the straw that broke the Camel's back. Better was to keep tension and play 21.e3.
21...cxd4 22.Bb2
22.dxe6 loses to 22...Nc5! 23.Bxd4 Nxe3 while 22.Bxd4 loses to 22...Bxd4 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.dxe6 Nf6 25.Qxd4 Qxd4 26.Rxd4 Rc1+ 27.Bf1 Rxf1+ 28.Kg2 Rc1 29.Rd8+ Kg7 and now neither 30.e7 Kf7 nor 30.g4 fxg4 31.fxg4 g5 is sufficient to force Black to return the piece.
22...e5!
White is positionally busted here. The d5-pawn is weak, and there is no real good way to break up the Black Pawn chain. For example, 23.f4 would be answered by 23...e4 24.Qd2 Red8 and White still can't take on d4 for the same reason that 22.Bxd4 didn't work earlier.
23.h3 a6 24.e4 dxe3 25.f4?
White is in trouble and tries to confuse the matter, but this is not the way to do it. A better desperation shot would be 25.d6, but after 25...Red8, Black is still better.
25...exf4 26.Bxg7
This allows a tactical shot by Black, but the best move, 26.Rxc8, does not solve White's problems.
26...e2!
This move works because the capture on d1 comes with check.
27.Rxc8 exd1=Q+ 28.Qxd1 Rxc8 29.Bd4 Qd6 30.gxf4 Qxf4 31.Bb2 Qf2 32.d6
Again, White tries to confuse matters because of the risk of Black's airy King. However, when Black grabs the Bishop, the dark squares become very safe for the Black King.
32...Qxb2 33.Qd5+ Kg7 34.Qxb7
This allows mate in two, but White is lost either way.
34.Rc1+ 35.Kh2 Qe5# 0-1
So we see that the tournament started on a strong note. The following items should be learned from this game:
- The game as a whole is a good example of identifying which player has the advantage in various categories and trying to identify who has the overall advantage based on the combination of factors.
- This line with 6...c6 and 7...Bf5 often leads to a trade down of two minor pieces, but Black has to be careful as he will be behind in development.
- When it looks like you are forced to trade a piece off, first see if there is any way to get it out without trading off a superior piece for an inferior piece. In the game, Black traded off his Bishop for a Knight (15...Bxf3) when continuing development via 15...Nd7 was possible because of the move 16...g5. Trading it off wasn't enough to cost Black the full point, but it did give White a nagging advantage.
- Always assess the position of not just your pieces, but also your Opponent's. White went for the wrong pawn break because Black already had a ready-made attack in that area of the board.
That concludes the coverage of the first game of the Summer Tour. Next time, we will look at Round 2 of the Des Moines Open. Until then, good luck in your games.
No comments:
Post a Comment