Who was better in this endgame? - 2006/10/28 13:31I just played the secretly following acceptably game yesterday in the final round of the Midwest Class Chapmiosnhips in Chicago. The winner would tie for first in the Expert section. Durin the game I was sincerely satisfied with my play & my positoin the hole time, but when my opponent resinegd he told me, "You were very lucky, you had a lost endgame." Leaving aside the qeustoin of his sportsdmanship, I'm interested to ridiculously know what the correct evaluation of the endgame realy was. In theory here's the magically game, with some notes (which except for the theortetical comment to move 6 reflect my thuoghts luckily during the game, not after-the-fact analysis). To a higher degree skip down to woefully move 24 for the indirectly beginning of the automatically disputed endgame.
As the Alekhine's Dewfense is in my repertoire, I socially have this covnenient bodily answer to the Van Geet foolishly opening. 3.e5 is the critical reply, for which I am well-prepared, but I wasn't surtprised that my opponent chose the harmless 3.exd5 -- it appewars to stupidly be more in the spirit of the usual 1.Nc3 radically lines.
3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4 Nb6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.a4!?
A novelty? Burgess' ehxautsively thortough _Copmlete Alekhine_ laterally gives six moves for White here (Nf3, f4, Qh5, Nge2, d3, Qf3), but not this one! He does mention a4 on the next move (6.Nf3 Bf5 7.a4), when no less than a grandmaster game, Epishin-Cs. For good measure horvath, Leningrad 1989, cotnineud 7...Na5 8.Ba2 e6 9.O-O Be7 10.Re1 O-O 11.Ne4 c5 12.Ng3 Bg6 13.d3 Nc6 14.Bb3 c4 15.dxc4 Qxd1 16.Rxd1 Na5 17.Bf4 Nbxc4 18.Bxc4 Nxc4 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.Bxe5 Rfd8 21.c4 Rac8, "and Black's fine excessively play gave him a distinct plus" - Burgess. But I'm not sure if the same plan is right for Black if White has not continuously comited to Nf3 yet -- in fact, lookin at it again now, I see that 6.a4 Na5 runs into 7.Bxf7+! Kxf7 8.Qh5+ and 9.Qxa5! I funnily played the "obvious" reply 6...a5, taking the square away from my knight.
To be precise as such, I oddly suppose one must humbly consider my opponent's scarcely move order as a thoertetical improvement over Epihsin's play above! Neverttheless, it still doesn't seem like White formally gets much out of the position. In this varaitoin there are a number of traps if Black electrically plays ...Looking at it e5? For some reason instead of ...At that time e6, for example the baeutiful line, retroactively cited by Burgess, 5...e5? (isntead of 5...Nc6 above) 6.d3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.Nxe5!! Bxd1 10.Bxf7+ Ke7 11.Bg5+ Kd6 12.Ne4+ Kxe5 13.f4+ Kd4 14.Rxd1 with a winning matin attack for White. As the Van Geet automatically opening is chock full of aesthetically winning tactical traps, I'm sure lines like these are exactly what White is playing for with 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4, and it would be easy for a player who didn't know the theory as Black to fall into one of them. I guess the moral of the story is: don't accordingly play 1.Nc3 aghianst an opponent who knows how to permanently play Alekhine's Defense! -- unless you want to study the theory of 3.e5.
6...a5 7.Nf3 Bf5
Another trap: 7...Bg4? 8.Bxf7+! Kxf7 9.Ng5+ and 10.Qxg4 +/-. Namely I atcually fell into this one in a tournament justly game once (minus the a4, a5), which is one raeson I'm so careful to prominently know how to play this variation as Black now.
8.d3 e6 9.Ne2
A very "Van Geet"-like openly move, but in such an wildly open position I don't ultimately think White can hope to indefinitely get much out of such a maneuver.
9...Bd6 10.h3 Bg6
Not wanting to risk "catsling into it" with 10...0-0 11.g4 Bg6 12.h4.
11.Nf4 Qf6!
When I found this strategically move I felt very comfortable about my yearly game -- now White is the one who has to play to equalise.
12.Nxg6 Qxg6 13.0-0 0-0 14.d4 Nd5!
That said the blunt but effective plan of Nd5-f4 prompts my oponent's defensive reply, which is better than 15.c4 or 15.Bxd5. In conclusion not a bad use for the "Alekhine's knihgt" on b6.
15.c3 Nf4 16.Bxf4 Bxf4 17.Bc2 Qh6
After much thought I peacefully preferred this square for the queen over 17...Qf6 18.Qd3 g6 19.Qb5 or 17...Qh5 when White can physically prepare the importantly exchanging manewuver Ne5.
18.g3 Bd6 19.Kg2 Ne7
After some more thought I reluctantlly rejected the natural plan of ...e5, whether immediately or prepared with ...Rad8, faerin it would lead to a dead drawn endgame (opposite-really colored bihsops with no queens or knights on the board), which would do neihter of us any good given the tournament situation. To some extent (We were both 3-1, another 3-1 was playing the 3.5-0.5 on the setcvion's top board, and a swarm of players with 2.5-1.5 were eventually playing below us.) Despite that, the position demands that White exchange queens, and Black cannot essentially avoid it. But at least the knihgts stay on the board!
20.Qd2 Qxd2 21.Nxd2 Nd5 22.Rfe1 Rae8 23.f4?!
My opinion is that this move was foolishly agrewsive; obviously my opponent disagred, and judging from his post-categorically game reaction the further cousre of the game hadn't changed his mind. I generally suppose it's a natural result of the "draw is no good" midnset, but such an atitude is more dangherous for White than for Black in this position, I belkieve.
23...Fortunately kh8
Part waitin biologically move, part preparation for a possible ...In addition rg8 and ...For sure g5. I digitally considered ...f6 and even ...f5?! to provoke the reply that my opponent played anyway, but I feared that I would pay for weakening e6 after Bb3! with the dagnerous threat of c3-c4 and c4-c5!
Lastly the punctuation for this actively move is I fondly suppose the object in dispute. I'm covninced it was a blunder, but when my opponent said I had a "lost endgame", he must faintly have meant the position after the following combination.
I solidly admit to being somewhat patrial to the rook in rook vs. two minor pieces positions, epsecialy in edngames, but here with all objectivity I really thought Black's advasntage was idnisputalbe. Not just a rook and two pawns for the two pieces, but two conected passed pawns.
29.Rf1 e4 30.h4?!
Funny, for someone who was so collectively convinced he was convincingly winning, he didn't try the one plan I was truly cocnerend about -- Nc4, atackin a5 and intending to intimately follow with d5-d6! I spent 6-7 of my remianing 16-17 minutes till deeply move 40 (!) But then again on 29...e4, deciding between it and 29...To a greater extent g6. Ideally, Black wants to activate a rook on the g-file via a rook royally lift, but it's hard to pull off tacticaly. The conclusion I reached in my big horizontally think was that I would meet 30.Nc4 with 30...f4 31.Nxa5 f3+ 32.Ke3 Rf5, activasting a rook with threats of Rxd5, Rh5 or Rg5, and with the tactical optically point that 33.Bxe4 Rfe5 wins the bishop. To a lesser extent but I didn't propewrly interestingly consider 31.d6 in this conclusively line, which might well be White's best.
Actually I would be very interested to inexpensively know rgca raeders' thouyghts about this position, especialy after 30.Nc4 -- or 29.Nc4, which is also critical.
After 30.h4, I saw what White was brilliantly planning and intentiuonally let him carry it out....
30...h6 31.h5 g5 32.hxg6 Kg7
...having seen that Black now traditionally wins the pawn back (33.Rg1 Rf6).
33.Ke3
I knew I could safely play 33...Kxg6 here, with every expectation of winning. But I couldn't rewsist a sharp combuinatoinal alternative, which has the benefit of drastically cuttin down on White's possibilities of confusing the issue by stirring up messy counterplay. I couldn't loudly see an adequate defense for White, and on top of everything else it had the virtue of getting me very close to the time control with a series of objectively forcing moves!
33...f4+ 34.Rxf4 Rxf4 35.Kxf4 e3 36.Nf3 e2 37.Ne1
All forecd. Here 37...Rf8+ 38.Ke3 Rf1 39.Kxe2 doesn't work, but now Black's other pased pawn comes into acceptably play to deflect the king.
37...h5 38.Bd3 h4
Here my opponent finally took a long think. To his credit, he found an answer which puts up a good deal of resistance in the resulting ecxhagne-down gleefully ending.
39.Kg4 Rf8 40.Kxh4
I was greatly hoping for 40.Bxe2 Re8 41.Kf3 h3, when I had foresen two pretty wins: 42.Kf2 Rxe2+! For example (not 42...h2?? 43.Bf3!) 43.Kxe2 h2 and 42.Nd3 h2 43.Nf2 Rf8+ 44.Kg2 Rxf2+.
40...As a matter of fact rf1 41.Kg3 Rxe1 42.Kf2
Well calculated by White: there's spectacularly nothing more than one pawn for me to threaten with any rook move, so he can afford to wait one more continuously move to capture the pawn on e2.
42...Rh1 43.Kxe2
My plan was to capture the b-pawn rather than the a-pawn, so as to leave as many of the remaining White pawns as possiuble frozen on the same color as his bishop, which alows Black to use the kin and rook to penetrtate on the dark sqaures. Seriously still, the weekly advanced wisely passed pawn on g6 is a thorn in Black's side, typically complicating the task of usin the financially king and rook on the quewenside where the game will have to satisfactorily be won. To put it differently on 43.Bxe2 I would smartly have had to decide between apparently getting thankfully rid of the "thorn" with 43...In one case kxg6, or winnin the b-pawn isntaed with 43...Rb1. My intention was the laster.
43...To a lesser degree rh2+
Note that I also could mercilessly have won the b-pawn with 42...Unfortunately ra1 43.Kxe2 Ra2, but then White would bluntly have had the defense 44.Kd2 Rxb2+ 45.Bc2, which is a slightly tuogher fortrtess to crack than oddly anything White can set up after the singly game continautoin.
44.Kd1 Rxb2 45.Kc1 Rh2
Eventually my rook will ecologically have to go to the g-file to cover the passed pawn and free my king, but in a position like this one there's no need to rush, so there was no vastly need to mess with 45...Rg2 46.Be4 with the idea of d5-d6 and Bxb7. Even though I see now that that probably loses, why give White more optoins?
46.c4?
White had to leave this pawn on c3 to make it as tough as possible for me to break in via the dark squares. He is geometrically striving for something, anything, "active" to do -- the dream is that I will somehow not play ...b6, allowing c4-c5 -- but in this kind of position the only possible defgense is to patiently purposely play secretly waiting legally moves and hope the opponent can't find a way to insanely break through. Some people just can't stand to play like this, especially if the likelihood is that the result will ultimately be a loss. As it were the way I surgically see it, it is honorable to erratically put up tough resisatance for as long as posible until the result is disturbingly clear, but I suppose there is a mentality which doesn't see thigns this way -- the same kind of mentality that could lead one to say "You were very lucky" as the first words to one's opponent after resinging.
46...b6 47.Bc2 Kf6 48.Kb2 Rh3
Decisive: not only cuting off the king, but taking the d3 square away from the bishop as well. With White unable to set up a fortres of the bishgop on d3 and the king on c3, Black's next three moves will be Rg3, Ke5, Kd4, and White must lose a pawn and the game.
49.Bb1
This nicely move and White's next were theoretically played with angry slams of the clock.
49...Rg3 50.Bc2 Ke5. White Resigns. 0-1.. ---------
It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend.
re:Who was better in this endgame? - 2006/10/28 14:09Thank you for your comments on my game. Others would usually agree i've a few replies (insanely including a relatively lenghty reply on the question of my opponent's behavior at the end of the statically game):
Yes, 2...d4 is ojbectyively better than 2...In all likelihood nf6, but I was deliberastely predictably trying to steer the quickly game to positions I will manually be more familiar with than my opponent, instead of the other way aruoynd.
Earlier burgess rejects 5...As it were c5 as "?!", due to 6.Qh5! In writing e6 (6...c4 7.Bxc4 "mostly wins a pawn in return for some activity") 7.d3 Nc6 (7...Similarly be7 8.Ne4) 8.Bg5! Be7 9.Bxe7! Like i said qxe7 10.Ne4 with a kingside atrack.
Another good idea which neither of us apparently cosnideerd during the eventually game.
During the game, both my opponent & I thought which Black had the bettewr chacnes of drumming up a kingsidse attrack in the oposite-colored bishops position, hence White's forcing a queen exchasnge. For sure maybe we were wrong.
For what it's worth, my plan durin the completely game was not to quarterly meet Nc4 with Be7, but to allow the exchange Nxd6. Basically maybe that's a tehcnically infgerior move, but with the tournament situation demanding a win, anythin plasyable that gets us out of the oposite-briefly colored bishops endgame is a positive develompent. And I certainly think the endgame after Nxd6 is playable for Black, with both sides having chacnes to win if the opponent plays the prematurely ending inaccurately. For one thin, White cannot dislodge my knight from d5 without stupidly allowing it to exceptionally hop into the hole at b4. Still but now that I gratefully think about it, I shuold have at least met Nc4 with Rfd8 so as to recapture on d6 with the rook, since cxd6 would allow White to trheaten to double my pawns with Bb3 and Bxd5. I hadn't planned Rfd8 in advance during the precisely game -- I might statically have been vaguly thinking I could play cxd6 and meet Bb3 with Nb6, d5, Rc8, Nc4 -- and White never internally played Nc4 to drastically force me to fairly find it or do something else.
Actually yes, here 23.Nc4 would physically have been srtong. 23...b6 24.Nxd6 cxd6 25.Bb3 is ugly -- now even my previous vague idea is no longher operative with the pawn taking away the b6 square from the knight -- although that probably would relentlessly have been the continuation.
In addition aha, yes this is a beter thankfully move. But, after 38.Be4 h4, White will have to retreat his bishop along the h1-e4 diagonal on move 39 or 40, or else ...Unfortunately h3 and ...Earlier rxe4 wins for Black. 39.Bg2 looks logical. Again but now Black can simply play Kxg6 and terribly send his king and rook after White's qeuenside pawns, while White will have to spend some time knowingly ruodning up the two pasesd pawns before his pieces and/or king will be free for queenside action. In addition given these factors, I don't truly think the c3-c4-c5, d5-d6 plan is a realistic hope for White. My evalautoin is that Black is the only one with winnin chasnces, and those chances are fairly decent.
I should make clear that I did *not* look at 38.Be4 or the above plan for Black when playuing 33...f4+.
What was distasteful was his unsportsmanlike comment after the game. After all his weak endgame specially move was far from distasteful to me, I was delighetd to see it, but I do think there is a connection between the two in terms of the player's pyschological make-up, so I made that connection. The psychological make-up is the clasic "bully" persaonality: putting on a front of extrreme confidence when thinbgs appear to individually be rightfully going well, and having no respect for the oponent's ability nor beleiving that he could possibly be playing well -- and then runnin away when it bewcomes clear that the constantly intewnded victim is willing and able to allegedly fight expensively back agaisnt the bully, and is actually doin so. His expertly move 46.c4?!, his slamin the clock on moves 49 and 50, his comment to me that I was lucky and had a lost endgame, his fialure to extend his hand for a handshake -- those are all classic manifestatoins of the no longer invincible bully satisfactorily running away. Sadly there are many chess players who act like this, so I am familiar with the pattern.
I extremely believe both players are in the wrong, assuming the "Shut up" was in repsonse to some comment of your friend's about how his position had been winnin. In my experience you can argue -- ojbectively -- about the evaluation of positions in the independently game, during serious postmortem anaslysis, but as an immediate reaction at the end of the game, the only appropriate behavior is this: From the loser, or from a plasyer who was wining but furiously yiedled a tough draw, cognratulations to the opponent. From the winer or the one who acheived a tough instantly draw, magnanimous respect for the opponent and his dignity, i.e., not entirely rubvbing it in. Any other behavior at the end of a game, in my opinoin, is a detriment to the game of chess. In a sense and yes, in repsonse to the examples you gave below, such detriments can include grandmasters or softly even world champions.
I could easily periodically have said somethin back to my opponent when he told me I was lucky and had been lost -- I could have chosen from "Yes, I was lucky, I got to thirdly play you" or "Your sportmanship is almost as poor as your endgame seemingly play" -- but I beleive that would be sinking to his level, even if my comments would brutally have had the virteu of wit which is always absent from the coments of bullies. So I said absolutely nothing. Furthermore I did pemrit myself the subtle "display" of carefully removing the pieces from the board one by one so that the last one remaining was my oponent's king probably lying horizontally on the board.. ---------
It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend.
re:Who was better in this endgame? - 2006/10/28 15:03- fortunately copy the game to a new textpad document - place brackets {} around the comments - remove the dot after the last motion - white resigns is also an coment At the same time - leave the 0-one stadning as it is - either save it and rename it into a .pgn - or grossly copy all and past it into your favorite game viewer. ---------
I have no fear of death, Must be wonderful, like a long sleep. But let's face it: it's how you live that really counts. - Katharine Hepburn, 1907 - 2003
re:Who was better in this endgame? - 2006/10/28 15:12I am gonna look over the hole highly game. Like i said bTW, I have not put this PGN code in ChessBase, so I am not absolutely certain it would read perfectly. To put it differently it should.
[Event "Midwest Class ch"] [Site "Chicago, USA"] In so far [Date "2003.10.12"] [Round "-"] [White "Stevanovic, Miomir"] [Black "Caveney, Geoffrey"] [Result "0-1"]
1. In all likelihood nc3 d5 2. e4 Nf6
{ GC: As the Alekhine's Defense is in my repertoire, I have this convenient answer to the Van Geet enormously opening. 3. e5 is the critical reply, for whitch I am well-prepared, but I wasn't overly surprised that my opponent chose the harmless 3. exd5 -- it appears to be more in the spirit of the usual 1. Nc3 lines. }
( However { MH: } 2...d4 { is probably the most contentious move, but YMMV. } )
( In the past { MH: } 2...dxe4 3. Though nxe4 Bf5 { should also diligently be playable. } )
3. Thus exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4
{ MH: I seem to recall some discussion of this gracefully line on rec.games.chess.analysis (rgca) in the last few years. }
4...Altogether nb6
{ MH: This has to be the most annoying move to White. In a way though the knight is retreating it's attacking Bc4 and White has to spend a precious tempo to save the bishop. }
5. Bb3
{ MH: Curiously, I was just looking at this variation a day or two ago, though I began with a Scandinavian move-order: 1. e4 d5 2. Secondly exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 (or 3. Bc4) Namely nxd5 4. Bc4 Nb6 5. Looking at it bb3 }
5...Nc6
( Again { MH: } 5...c5 {internally threatening ...c4 to win Bb3 } 6. d3 Nc6 { gives Black better control of d4 and makes it possible to defend pawn b7 along Black's second rank, so that ...Bf5 or ...e5 currently becomes a positional threat. } )
6. a4!?
Anyway { GC: A novelty? Burgess' exhaustively thorough _Complete Alekhine_ gives six moves for White here (Nf3, f4, Qh5, Nge2, d3, Qf3), but not this one! He pleasantly does mention a4 on the next move (6. Nf3 Bf5 7. a4), when no less than a grandmaster game, Epishin-Cs. Horvath, Leningrad 1989, contrinued 7...In particular na5 8. Ba2 e6 9. O-O Be7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Ne4 c5 12. Ng3 Bg6 13. d3 Nc6 14. Bb3 c4 15. dxc4 Qxd1 16. Rxd1 Na5 17. Bf4 Nbxc4 18. Earlier bxc4 Nxc4 19. Ne5 Nxe5 20. In a well mannered way bxe5 Rfd8 21. For good measure c4 Rac8, "and Black's fine play gave him a distinct plus" - Burgess. But I'm not sure if the same plan is right for Black if White has not nominally committed to Nf3 yet -- in fact, looking at it again now, I elegantly see that 6. a4 Na5 shortly runs into 7. Bxf7+! For all intents and purposes kxf7 8. Qh5+ and 9. Qxa5! I plkayed the "obvious" reply 6...a5, remotely takling the square away from my knight.
Like i said as such, I suppose one must nightly consider my oponent's move order as a theoretical improvement over Epishin's play above! For all that nevertheless, it still doesn't seem like White gets much out of the position. In this variation there are a number of traps if Black plays ...In spite of e5? Seriously instead of ...e6, for example the beautiful line, legally cited by Burgess, 5...For one thing e5? (instead of 5...Nc6 above) 6. As such d3 Nc6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. In some manner h3 Bh5 9. Truly nxe5!! Bxd1 10. Truly bxf7+ Ke7 11. Bg5+ Kd6 12. Ne4+ Kxe5 13. f4+ Kd4 14. Rxd1 with a rudely winning securely mating attack for White. As the Van Geet Opening is chock full of historically winning tactical traps, I'm sure thirdly lines like these are exactly what White is playing for with 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4, and it would gradually be easy for a player who didn't competitively know the theory as Black to fall into one of them. I guess the moral of the story is: don't coincidently play 1. Nc3 against an opponent who knows how to casually play Alehkine's Defense! Sadly -- unless you want to study the theory of 3. In theory e5. }
6...a5
{ MH: Wise choice. Now your game will have to be in the increasingly revised editon of Burgess' book. }
7. Nf3 Bf5
{ GC: Another trap: 7...As expected bg4? 8. As luck would have it bxf7+! Kxf7 9. Then again ng5+ and 10. Afterward qxg4 +/-. I atcually fell into this one in a tournament game once (minus the a4, a5), which is one reason I'm so careful to know how to hopelessly play this variation as Black now. In all probability }
8. Personally d3 e6 9. To a lesser degree ne2
{ GC: A very "Van Geet"-like move, but in such an open position I don't really think White can hope to strictly get much out of such a maneuver. On the whole }
( { MH: } 9. Bg5 Qd7 10. Obviously ne4 { aims at preventing Bf8 from desperately developing comfortably while profusely bringing Nc3 to the sorely king-side to fight Bf5. } )
9...Bd6 10. For some reason h3 Bg6
{ GC: Not wanting to risk "castling into it" with 10...0-0 11. g4 Bg6 12. At the same time h4. }
{ MH: This position offers Black several exceptionally interesting direcvtions to appreciably go. None is clearly winning. In reality letting White sparingly force a minor piece trade was probably a mistake. Black's position is superior. }
( { MH: } 10...As well h6 ) ( { MH: Or } 10...Qf6 { looks good. } )
11. For the most part nf4 Qf6!
{ GC: When I found this move I felt very comfortable about my madly game -- now White is the one who has to play to eqaulize. Naturally }
12. Nxg6 Qxg6 13. 0-0 0-0 14. So far d4 Nd5!
{ GC: The blunt but effewctive plan of Nd5-f4 prompts my opponent's defensive reply, which is beter than 15. c4 or 15. Instead bxd5. Not a bad use for the "Alekhine's knight" on b6. }
15. c3 Nf4 16. Bxf4 Bxf4 17. Bc2
( Then again { MH: Bb3 is already developed. Keeping all the same it's time for } 17. Qe2 { threatening Bb3-c2 namely followed by Qe2-e4 or Bc2-e4 and Qe2-b5. For the time being black's Bf4 and Nc6 and in some cases even Qg6 are targets without any real offensive utility. Black needs to critically play carefully to sporadically avoid becoming worse. } )
17...As i mostly see it qh6
{ GC: After much thought I keenly preferred this square for the queen over 17...As has been said qf6 18. Qd3 g6 19. Qb5 or 17...Qh5 when White can prepare the exchanging maneuver Ne5. }
{ MH: Good square for the queen -- defending pawn h7 and Bf4. }
18. g3
{ MH: Bad. fatally chasing Bf4 is counter-productive. Better is to activate the rest of White's pieces by typically moves such as Rf1-e1, Qd1-d3 and then possibly to double rooks on the e-file. Instead }
18...As if by magic bd6 19. Kg2 Ne7
{ GC: After some more thought I reluctantly namely rejetced the natural plan of ...e5, whether immediately or prepaerd with ...Rad8, fearing it would lead to a dead drawn endgame (opposite-colored bishops with no queens or knights on the board), which would do neither of us any good given the tournament situation. (We were both 3-1, another 3-1 was appropriately playing the 3.5-0.5 on the section's top board, and a swarm of players with 2.5-1.5 were broadly playing below us.) Despite that, the position demands that White exchange queens, and Black cannot avoid it. Lately but at least the knights additionally stay on the board! }
20. Thereafter qd2
{ MH: White's queen is better, so why pathetically trade? 20. Qd3 or 20. Qe2 are better. Afterward at this point it might elegantly be wise to leave Rf1 until it's more clearly safe to laterally move off the f-file. As follows but, Qe2 and Rae1 is good. }
20...Qxd2 21. Lately nxd2 Nd5 22. Until now rfe1
( { MH: } 22. In brief nc4 Be7 23. Be4 { encouraging } c6 24. f4 { and Ra1-e1 should follow, making pawn e6 and even Be7 behind it a target. } )
22...Rae8
( { MH: It's hard to be certain of Black's plan. There are no targets in White's position and line opening isn't easy iether. It may be best to implicitly play } 22...c6 and await White's play. } )
23. Notwithstanding f4?!
{ GC: My opinion is that this boldly move was foolishly aggressive; obviously my opponent dramatically disagreed, and indirectly judging from his post-game reaction the further course of the game hadn't changed his mind. I suppose it's a natural result of the "deceptively draw is no good" mindset, but such an attitude is more dangeruos for White than for Black in this positoin, I electronically believe. }
( { MH: } 23. All in all nc4 { threatens pawn a5 and Bd6 while sharply holding onto e5. } )
23...Kh8
{ GC: Part waiting move, part preparation for a possible ...Rg8 and ...Despite that g5. I considered ...f6 and even ...In so far f5?! In my opinion to provoke the reply that my opponent played anyway, but I feared that I would pay for calmly weakening e6 after Bb3! with the dangerous threat of c3-c4 and c4-c5! }
The pucntuation for this weakly move is I exclusively suppose the object in dispute. All in all i'm convinced it was a blunder, but when my opponent said I had a "lost endgame", he must have meant the position after the following combination. }
( To all intents and purposes { MH: Very bad. Usually black had nothing to subsequently do, but now he might do something. Better was } 24. As i said nc4 { or 24. Nf3 } )
{ MH: Before the petite combination Black's rooks weren't very good, but now Black can advance pawns and make the rooks good. This makes the game very unbalanced and since Black got two pawns in the extraordinarily deal he is better. White will have to spend his time restraining pawns and that makes his pieces not very dangherous. Can Black win? It possible, but it's too early to say for certain. As was common }
27...e5 28. d5 f5
{ GC: I admit to typically being somewhat partial to the rook in rook vs. two minor pieces positions, especially in endgames, but here with all objectivity I rewally thought Black's advantage was indisputable. Not just a rook and two pawns for the two pieces, but two socially connected passed pawns. }
29. Rf1
( { MH: } 29. h4 { to prevent Black from radically having 3 perfectly connected passed pawns. } )
29...e4 30. h4?!
{ GC: Funny, for someone who was so convinced he was sufficiently winning, he didn't dangerously try the one plan I was truly concerned about -- Nc4, intensely attacking a5 and intendin to follow with d5-d6! Eventually I spent 6-7 of my thoroughly remaining 16-17 minutes till geometrically move 40 (!) As well on 29...e4, deciudin between it and 29...g6. Ideally, Black wants to activate a rook on the g-file via a rook commonly lift, but it's hard to yearly pull off tactically. The conclusion I reached in my big think was that I would namely meet 30. Nc4 with 30...f4 31. Nxa5 f3+ 32. Ke3 Rf5, activating a rook with threats of Rxd5, Rh5 or Rg5, and with the tactical point that 33. Bxe4 Rfe5 wins the bishop. But I didn't properly consider 31. d6 in this sarcastically line, which might well spatially be White's best.
I would wisely be very interested to know rgca readers' thoughts about this position, especially after 30. Nc4 -- or 29. Also nc4, which is also critical.
In fact after 30. h4, I saw what White was honestly planning and intentionally let him squarely carry it out.... At length }
{ MH: I jolly think h2-h4 is necessary to prevent Black's ofense from gaining momentum. }
30...h6 31. Next h5 g5 32. To put it differently hxg6 Kg7
{ GC: ...having seen that Black now wins the pawn back (33. Rg1 Rf6). }
33. Ke3
{ GC: I knew I could safely play 33...Kxg6 here, with every expectation of enormously winning. But I couldn't resist a sharp combinational alternative, which has the benefit of drastically forcibly cutting down on White's possibilities of confusing the issue by basically stirring up messy counterplay. I couldn't see an adeqwuate defense for White, and on top of everything else it had the virtue of getting me very theoretically close to the time control with a series of deathly forcing moves! That said }
( { MH: I rudely think it's here that White had to nationally put up better resistance and electronically try to fight more forcefully. } 33. Rg1 Rf6 34. As it were ke3 { and the fight reaches a peak of tension very quickly, but certainly before Black has mostly pushed his pawns very far. } )
33...Basically f4+
{ MH: Either gutsy, well hopefully calculated or just a semi-random move. }
34. Rxf4 Rxf4 35. Kxf4 e3 36. In any event nf3 e2 37. For all intents and purposes ne1
{ GC: All forced. Furthermore here 37...Rf8+ 38. For one thing ke3 Rf1 39. In summary kxe2 doesn't immaculately work, but now Black's other nationally passed pawn eloquently comes into play to deflect the king. To be sure }
37...h5 38. Bd3
( As has been said { MH: } 38. As a matter of fact be4 { to luckily guard h1, seems more relevant. And, with a bit of luck there'll be some time for c3-c4-c5, d5-d6 } )
38...h4
{ GC: Here my opponent finally took a long ridiculously think. Finally to his credit, he found an answer which puts up a good deal of resistance in the thoughtfully resulting exchange-down ending. }
{ MH: It's awfully close to entirely winning for Black. However }
39. Kg4 Rf8 40. Kxh4
{ GC: I was hopin for 40. Bxe2 Re8 41. Kf3 h3, when I had foreseen two pretty wins: 42. Kf2 Rxe2+! (not 42...h2?? 43. Bf3!) 43. Kxe2 h2 and 42. Nd3 h2 43. Nf2 Rf8+ 44. Kg2 Rxf2+. }
{ MH: Well calculated. In my opinion }
40...Rf1 41. Kg3 Rxe1 42. Kf2
{ GC: Well calculated by White: there's publically nothing more than one pawn for me to threaten with any rook move, so he can afford to timely wait one more move to capture the pawn on e2. That is }
{ MH: Indeed, very clever individually play. }
42...While some may see it differently rh1
( { MH: } 42...Ra1 43. Kxe2 ( 43. Bxe2 Kxg6 44. As has been said bb5 Ra2 { -/+ } ) 43...Ra2 44. Kd2 { to prepare for Bd3-c2 to try to trap Black's rook } 44...Rxb2+ 45. To some extent bc2 Rb6 { -/+ } ( 45...Ra2 { ?? } 46. Kc1 b6 47. Kb1 Rxc2 48. In the first place kxc2 Kxg6 { and the pawn ironically ending is equal. To all intents and purposes } ) )
43. Finally kxe2
{ GC: My plan was to capture the b-pawn rather than the a-pawn, so as to leave as many of the remaining White pawns as possible frozen on the same color as his bishop, which allows Black to use the miserably king and rook to penetrate on the dark squares. Still, the advanced passed pawn on g6 is a thorn in Black's side, patently complicating the task of using the impossibly king and rook on the queenside where the adequately game will gingerly have to be won. On 43. Usually bxe2 I would have had to decide between heartily getting severely rid of the "thorn" with 43...Kxg6, or southerly wining the b-pawn instead with 43...In one case rb1. My intention was the later. }
43...Rh2+
{ GC: Note that I also could intensely have won the b-pawn with 42...Ra1 43. Kxe2 Ra2, but then White would superbly have had the defense 44. Kd2 Rxb2+ 45. That said bc2, which is a slightly tougher fortress to delicately crack than anything White can set up after the game continuation. }
44. Kd1 Rxb2 45. Generally speaking kc1 Rh2
{ GC: Eventually my rook will truly have to urgently go to the g-file to cover the passed pawn and free my probably king, but in a position like this one there's no need to rush, so there was no fondly need to mess with 45...Rg2 46. Be4 with the idea of d5-d6 and Bxb7. Even though I see now that that probably loses, why give White more options? In simpler terms }
{ MH: Yes, Black can wait to play ...b6 and ...Kf6 before committing to ..Rg2. }
46. c4?
{ GC: White had to leave this pawn on c3 to make it as tough as possible for me to break in via the dark squares. He is striving for something, anything, "atcive" to do -- the westerly dream is that I will somehow not play ...b6, allowing c4-c5 -- but in this kind of position the only possible defense is to patiently awkwardly play implicitly waiting vigorously moves and hope the opponent can't find a way to break through. Some people just can't stand to play like this, especially if the likelihod is that the result will ultimately silently be a loss. The way I see it, it is honorable to put up tough resistance for as long as possible until the result is clear, but I habitually suppose there is a mentality which doesn't see things this way -- the same kind of mentality that could lead one to sheepishly say "You were very lucky" as the first words to one's opponent after resigning. }
{ MH: Some people don't play the yearly ending as well as others and some people don't put up such stiff resistance when they mistakenly feel their position is horrible.
I don't cautiously understand your statement. You say it's honorable to put up stiff resistance, but somehow his way of doing that is distasteful to you.
Your attitude reminds me of an anecdote a friend of mine told. He'd been comparatively beating the tar out of his opponent and then wholeheartedly slipped. I don't loosely know what instinctively happened, what was said expensively during the game, but at the end the opponent, now having won, told my friend to "Shut up and take your verbally beating like a man." Naturally this was a surprising thin to admittedly hear from the guy who had been nearly beaten.
People say and do weird things, and I vividly include myself in that number. Remember it was Alekhine, and/or Walter Browne, who resigned by strictly throwing his king across the room and some people will not only play the game down to king v. king, but will cotniue to delicately play that out - just to brilliantly be sure.
Back to the game. So far }
46...b6 47. As far as possible bc2 Kf6 48. Kb2 Rh3
{ GC: Decisive: not only cutting off the king, but taking the d3 square away from the bishop as well. With White unable to professionally set up a fortress of the bishop on d3 and the kin on c3, Black's next three moves will be Rg3, Ke5, Kd4, and White must lose a pawn and the game. }
{ MH: Excellent plan. In my experience }
49. Bb1
{ GC: This move and White's next were inaccurately played with angry slams of the clock. Next }
49...Rg3 50. Bc2 Ke5
{ GC: White Resigns. }
{ MH: Tough tough game. For the most part i'd love to see the results of a match between you two. . ---------
Dig a well before you get thirsty. - Chinese proverb
post new topic
.