We’ve all heard it before. An overconfident high-rated player sees that they’re paired against a significantly lower rated opponent. Thinking that it’s going to be a relatively so-called “Easy win”, the high-rated player doesn’t take the game seriously at first. Then, to his great disbelief, the lower rated player absolutely crushed and upset his higher-rated opponent. How could this have possibly occurred? Now to a not so experienced player, this scenario might be outright preposterous. Sure there’s always luck involved with chess, but shouldn’t the significantly high-rated player in his infinite wisdom and expertise beat the low rated player all the time? Unfortunately, like in life, in chess, things are not so simple. Sure maybe the lower rated player was lucky, maybe he’s underrated or hey, maybe he just had a good day. But there’s another part of to this too. Having the right attitude can make or break a chess game, and today we are going to discuss the correct way to approach playing against your secretly scary lower rated opponents.
Before I begin, I should probably put a disclaimer: a lot of the things that I’m about to say might seem obvious or redundant, but you’d be surprised about how many people don’t do this in their games! The first and probably most obvious rule is to go into the game with a calm mindset. Yes, you might have noticed that you are higher rated than your opponent, but that shouldn’t mean anything to you. Just go into the game with a clear head and be relaxed. The second and arguably most important rule is to not do anything you wouldn’t do against someone around your rating or higher. Don’t take any unusual risks, make any flashy moves, or do anything that you wouldn’t do normally and do the best you can throughout the entire match. The third and final rule is to not be discouraged if things don’t go as planned and you end up getting upset. Every game is an important learning experience and it’s only through your losses that you can truly learn where your gaps in knowledge are and how you can improve.
I hope this article, albeit short, was helpful to you. The main takeaway I’d say about the proper mindset to have when playing lower rated opponents is to just be normal. As long as you’re careful, and don’t make any silly decisions, there is a reason why you are the higher rated opponent. Until next time 🙂
Black clearly should’ve resigned a long time ago… There are numerous mates in one and mates in two here. I decided to end in style with 47.a8B#!
Black is totally winning here, but 29… Re1 doesn’t work because of 30.Rxe1 fxe1Q 31.Qxf8#, right…? Well it doesn’t, since after 30.Rxe1, I played 30… fxe1N+! winning the game immediately.
These two examples are naturally somewhat silly since the side underpromoting was completely winning anyway, but there’s one underpromotion that is important in endgame theory…
Black’s pawn is almost there… but if he plays … e1Q, white has Ra1#. Therefore black has to play …e1N+! because it is a check. The ensuing rook vs. knight endgame is a draw. The same trick works with an f- or a g-pawn, but not with an h-pawn, since the knight gets trapped in the corner.
If you haven’t seen this one before, I’d recommend you study it a little. I myself don’t actually think I’ve ever had this one on the board, but I or you probably will someday…
Oh boy, this is fun if you are on the correct side of the board, it really is.
There are legendary stalemate tricks in online rapid/blitz/bullet due to the existence of premoving (making a move of your own before your opponent makes their move in order to save time on your clock). And yes, this move is played as long as it’s legal, even if your opponent played something completely different than what you expected. You may think you know your opponent’s move, but you may be for a rude surprise.
Here is Eric Rosen’s trick. Black is obviously completely lost in the pawn endgame after Kxf7, so black tried his last trick with 69… Kh8!!, and he was in luck since white premoved 70.h5 after which it is stalemate.
I recently saw another brilliant trick in the chess.com Bullet Championship:
White is obviously completely winning here as well. Both players had only seconds left at this point, but black set a genius trap with 66…Bb8!!, and white, none other than Grischuk, fell for it by playing/premoving the natural 67.a8Q?? after which it is stalemate.
Unfortunately, these brilliant techniques don’t really work in OTB chess, though I have witnessed a couple examples of diabolic stalemates that were entertaining for spectators like me. There have even been a couple stalemate tricks in high-profile games like Jakovenko-Gelfand. But who says that stalemates have to be diabolic tricks…?
I was black in this game, and I had survived the worst. My queen had been harassing the white king for quite a while, but here black has one drawing move: 76… Qf6+!, since if white plays 77.Qxf6 it’s stalemate. My opponent played 77.Kc7, and since we had already had the position twice before, I claimed a threefold repetition after 77… Qc3+ and the game was a draw.
(Note: tabelbases say that 76… Qf6+ is not the only drawing move; 76… Qa1 is also supposedly a draw. I won’t pretend that I can explain why…)
Neat, right? In all seriousness, moves like 76… Qf6+ are easy to miss, especially towards the end of a long game, but they could save you half a point!
The great Frank Marshall once said that “winning a won game is one of the hardest things in chess.” It may seem counterintuitive at first, but many examples, both of our own and of the top chess players, show that players can struggle with it. Additionally, this point is more applicable to situations where one player is up a pawn, up a piece for a couple pawns, or even just positionally superior but with equal material. In each case, the engine may say one thing (“player A is totally winning!”), but on the board, it may be a very different story (“I know I’m better, but how do I continue?!”).
Luckily for us, the 2019 Gashimov Memorial in Shamkir, Azerbaijan, is currently ongoing so we can try to scour the games played thus far for examples of players converting winning positions when it may not be straightforward.
When it comes to conversions in the endgame, who better to study than Magnus Carlsen? This first game involves a conversion of an endgame in which Carlsen was up an exchange for a pawn against David Navara in the third round. To fully examine Carlsen’s technique, we will start right after the queens were traded. For your convenience, the game and analysis are provided in the game viewer below.
In this game, we saw Carlsen identify a target (the h2-pawn) in the endgame and focus on accomplishing a goal related to that target, which was to capture the h2-pawn. Carlsen also made sure that White’s queenside pawns wouldn’t pose a threat by separating them from each other and then picking them off. Lastly, we saw Carlsen wait for the opportune time to force a trade of rooks that would benefit him immensely, especially in terms of pushing his own h-pawn down the board. The end result was a classic Carlsen-esque conversion of an endgame in which he was better.
The second game we’ll look at today was between Alexander Grischuk and Veselin Topalov. While this game didn’t go into an endgame, it was very much about converting a position with an advantage. In this game, Grischuk managed to trade both of his knights for Topalov’s bishops, and in an open position, it was clear that the bishops were superior. It was just a matter of transforming that advantage into something tangible. Once again, the game and analysis are provided in the game viewer below for your convenience.
As we saw in the game, there were a couple different goals that Grischuk likely had in his pursuit of a win in this superior position. First, Grischuk wanted to poke holes in Black’s position with his queen and bishops and create weaknesses. Once he was able to do that, Grischuk wanted to maneuver his pieces into a position where he would be able to target two weaknesses at once, forcing a further concession by Black that would leave the position very open for his bishops. Lastly, with the open position, Grischuk would hope to use a combination of pins and cutting off squares to win material and eventually the game. Meanwhile, during this entire process, Grischuk had to hide his king away in order to not fall into a perpetual check, which Topalov did threaten a couple times.
In both of these games, we saw established grandmasters plan out and then convert a position in which they were superior. While there may have been a few missteps (such as in the Grischuk-Topalov game), the players were conscious enough of their goals to right the ship and continue pressing. Overall, we were able to see just some of the ideas that grandmasters use to try to convert positions.
In other news, Chess^Summit’s very own Jennifer Yu won the U.S. Women’s Championship last week, so on behalf of the entire Chess^Summit community, I want to congratulate her on the amazing feat!
Next time, I’ll share some of my attempts (both successes and failures) to convert superior positions.
Underpromotions are interesting and unusual. Despite being a weaker piece, on rare occasions promoting to a knight is better than promoting to a queen (can’t recall when this has happened in a tournament game of mine, except perhaps occasionally in a certain variation that could’ve arisen in a game). Of course, the queen has the combined powers of a rook and bishop. Therefore only in very rare cases promoting to a rook is better than promoting to a queen (and in EXTREMELY rare cases a bishop is the best choice). The reason in such cases will almost always be, to avoid giving stalemate in a winning endgame position. Technically there are positions where you have to underpromote to a bishop or rook to draw a game (by stalemating yourself), but I don’t know if such a thing ever happened in a tournament game.
However, every now and then a given underpromotion can be considered EQUIVALENT to promoting to a queen. Usually, this is when the opponent’s clearly best reply is to capture the promoted piece. So in some cases you can even argue that promoting to a bishop is as good as choosing a queen. I believe that if an under-promotion like this is made, it is to show a certain sense of humor. For example, I think there have been a few famous cases of humorous underpromotions by Ivanchuk (Ivanchuk-Topalov, 1996 comes to mind). Ivanchuk is my idol in certain ways, which I’ll go into another time. On various occasions in serious tournament games, out of similar intent I’ve underpromoted, sometimes to a bishop. For instance, my game against GM Mikhalevski from Foxwoods 2014 came to mind: on move 46 I promoted my g-pawn to a bishop (though 5 moves later I was smart enough to promote my a-pawn to a queen, and win!). However, in a recent game, against a GM I took this too far. Let me show you what I mean.
I recently played in the Third Saturday round robin tournament in Djenovici, Montenegro. It was my first time in that Balkan country and the place was rather beautiful. Overall, I did pretty well, after a rough start. In the penultimate round 8 I was white against a veteran Serbian GM who’s very solid. For instance, in this event going into our game he had 4/7 with 1 win and 6 draws. I also had 4/7. Let’s see how the game went:
IM Justin Sarkar (ELO 2339) – GM Bosko Abramovic (ELO 2362) [D51] Third Saturday Djenovici (8), 22.03.2019
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 No Nimzo today. I actually spent more time considering what to play against the Nimzo-Indian, in my pregame prep. 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 h6 This less common move keeps the game in D51, which was a new ECO code for my tournament practice. More another time, on my knowledge of ECO codes and their classifications. Most common is 6…Qa5, which is the Cambridge Springs Variation and ECO code D52. 7.Bh4 g5!? 8.Bg3 Nh5
Virtually unknown before 3 years ago but has become kind of trendy since. I actually had a feeling Abramovic might go for this, in case he chose the QGD/Semi-Slav, as I saw a couple of prior games of his in it (without seeing any other 6th moves he had played, such as the Cambridge Springs, in his big game collection). Again though, I was more focused on the Nimzo-Indian, while trying to briefly consider various other things too. While this was my first time actually facing the 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 Nh5 sideline, I’d looked into it in summer 2017, focusing on an interesting sharp plan for white involving Qc2 and 0-0-0. 9.Qc2 Incidentally the other published Abramovic games featured different 9th moves by white, though I had to assume he was aware of this move/plan. Nxg3 10.hg3 Bg7 11.0-0-0
Interestingly enough this was first reached (via a weird opening move order transposition) in Igor Ivanov-Taimanov, 1975, which white won (black played the dubious 11…Qa5, which has not been repeated) Nb6 This was played in one prior published game, by GM Dreev, sometime in fall 2017. Other moves are 11…a6 and 11…Qe7. 12.Ne5 Bxe5 Black can try playing the immediate 12…Qe7, when I suppose 13.f4 is an idea for white. 13.de5 Qe7
This position was reached in Koziak-Dreev, Bastia 2017. Actually I became aware of this last summer, when preparing for a game as white against GM Petr Haba at the 2018 Pardubice Open. This sideline was one of many things Haba could’ve played (he actually played something sharp and unexpected in another Slav line, yet I won what was one of my better games). While reviewing this line then I noticed the new 11…Nb6 move and win by Dreev. When engine checking for ways white can improve, I stumbled upon something very interesting on this move. Koziak-Dreev, 2017 continued 14.Kb1 Bd7 15.f4 Qc5 and Black eventually won. Perhaps 16.fg5 Qxe3 17.g6 favors white, though it’s not so clear.
Not the king, but the knight! A totally non-human move, which only a computer would play. The shock value in itself makes it worth playing, especially if it might be objectively strong 🙂 It probably deserves a double exclam. I never looked into the particulars to appreciate it, but figured that if Black tried to copy Dreev’s play, this was the move to play. I reviewed my notes just long enough for the Abramovic game, to recall this position (and the Nb1 move!). This move befuddled my opponent. I guess the idea is to play 15.c5 or 15.Nd2. For instance on 14…Bd7 15.c5 is very strong as the knight is forced to c8. How else does black develop? On 14…Qc5 15.Nd2 with a strong initiative. c5? But this runs into another problem 15.Nc3!
Knight back! Now the dual threat 16.cd5 and 16.Nb5 is a real problem. Bd7 On 15…dc4, 16.Ne4 or Nb5 is a major issue. 16.cd5 ed5 17.Nxd5 Nxd5 Maybe when playing 14…c5 he thought he had 17…Qxe5? here, just like I did for a moment or two before making my 15th move. But of course, attacking the queen with 18.f4 pretty much wins on the spot. 18.Rxd5 b6 19.f4 0-0-0 20.Rd6 Be6 21.Ba6+ Kb8 22.Rhd1 Rxd6 23.ed6 Qf6 Black is unlikely to survive for long, but this should just hasten the end. 24.Qe4 Bc8
Just about anything should win here. The cleanest is 25.Qe7! Qxe7 26.de7 Kc7 (I saw this, then decided this wasn’t “simple enough”, conveniently filtering out the move 27.Bb5, winning on the spot): 27.Bb5 1-0 25.d7 Bxa6 26.Qe8+ Kc7 Little did he realize, he just set a trap. On 26…Qd8 27.Qxh8 Qxh8 I’d probably promote to a rook, as here black OBVIOUSLY has little choice but to play 28…Qxd8 anyway 🙂 Then 29.Rxd8+ Kc7 30.Rf8 or Rh8 should win easily.
At first the game score on the chess-results site when it initially got posted that night had ended here as 1-0. This would be a logical ending point, as white wins easily after 27.d8/Q+ Qxd8 and now either 28.Rxd8 Rxe8 29.Rxe8 or 27.Qxf7+ followed by taking the queen. So, you can say I won the first game. But unfortunately, the game score on the site later got updated and the truth had to be told: a second game is just about to begin!
27.d8/B+?? What the ?? Actually the delay in updating the game was caused by the delay the person inputting the game had in figuring out how to make a bishop promotion! Maybe it was set on “Always Queen” or something. Seriously, I just assumed black had to take on d8 and surely the king moves lost quickly. However, my eyes played tricks on me, in a nasty way. This is the “second best” promotion choice here (others would lose, due to not giving check while the e8 queen is hanging), yet it throws away the win. After like a minute’s pause, my opponent played … Kb8! Oops!! He had that one! Now my queen is hanging, so 28.Bxf6+ Rxe8 is just a queen trade, while the tempting “double check” with 28.Bc7+?? Kxc7 29.Rd7+ Kc6 just… loses! That leaves 28.Qd7 when uh-oh black has 28…Qe6 and there’s no knockout blow for me. But in a few minutes I figured I just had to play it anyhow as there’s nothing better. 28.Qd7 Qe6
Only move, but good enough to stay in the game. I had to adjust to the shock that I blew the win and probably had to go into an opposite-color bishop ending where I have at most a tiny edge with a draw being very likely. This underpromotion hallucination was quite a moment. Totally unheard of, just like for instance GM David Navara’s game against GM Moiseenko from the 2011 World Cup. To quote Wikipedia: “After a long struggle, Navara offered a draw in a winning position. Earlier in the game, Navara accidentally touched a piece, but Moiseenko did not insist on the “touch-move” rule that would have lost him the game. Moiseenko was subsequently outplayed by the Czech GM, who with a forced mate on the board offered him a draw”. While of course this situation is different and unrelated, it is an unheard of occurrence of comparable magnitude. Or here, unheard of stupidity by me. Well maybe you can joke that my promotion to a bishop was a desire to when on the brink of victory, give my opponent a draw! Let’s see what happened, and who if either of us adjusted better to the shock: 29.Bc7+ I figured this was relatively best, though took awhile to come to terms with it Ka8 30.Qxe6 Similar story here. 30.Be5? is just asking for trouble after Qc4+ when White’s king is at least as weak and only Black can be better. fe6
White has many moves, but the opposite-color bishop endgame is pretty equal. I spent awhile trying to decide whether or not to even still try to win, but just couldn’t quite get myself to give up on such hopes yet. 31.e4 a slightly desperate attempt to keep the game going, by creating a passed pawn with f5 next. Bb7 32.f5 Bxe4 Grabbing a pawn with 32…ef5 33.ef5 Bxg2 is also fully playable. White’s compensation for the pawn should be enough only for a draw. I’ll leave it up to you to verify this by testing a few lines if you wish. 33.f6 33.fe6 Re8 forces white to trade rooks to save the e-pawn, when black has the “better side of a draw” in a pure ocb. Whereas, 33.Be5 followed by 34.f6 is similar to the game with 33.f6 and slightly more accurate, forcing the rook to immediately commit to either h7 or f8. Rf8 One of a few plausible moves. Probably 33…Rh7 is a bit more accurate, guarding the 7th rank. 34.Be5
Bd5? Already a big mistake. Rather than try to block the d-file the bishop should go backwards… on the other diagonal with 34…Bg6! when 35.Rd6 Kb7, 35.Rd7 Rf7, or 35.Rh1 h5 should hold the balance without undue trouble. 35.Rh1 Now the rook penetrates on the h-file, while gobbling a key pawn. Bxg2 Black ought to try 35…Bxa2, with 2 extra queenside pawns, even though after 36.Rxh6 followed by soon picking up the g-pawn white’s pawns should be much stronger. 36.Rxh6 Be4 37.g4 I suppose I played this first to not allow 37.Rh5 g4, though 38.Rg5 picks up the pawn as an attempt to defend it with the bishop loses quickly to 39.Rg7 followed by 40.f7. Kb7 38.Rh5 Kc6 39.Rxg5
Rf7 39…Bf3 with idea to play …Kd5 was a better try. 40.Kd2 b5 41.Ke3 Bb1
42.Kf4 Felt no need to move the a-pawn, as 42…Bxa2 43.Rg7 Rf8 44.g5 would win very quickly. Rh7 43.Rg8 Rh1 44.a3 Yet for some reason here I chose to move it, just in case. 44.Kg5 is more direct and to the point. Rf1+
45.Kg3 I talked myself into playing this for the wrong reasons, whereas on the natural and stronger 45.Kg5 Kd5 just about any bishop move should win easily. Kd5 46.Rg5?! a bit fancy/clumsy, although still winning. I didn’t want to have to calculate 46.Bf4 e5 47.f7 Rxf4 48.f8/Q Rxf8 49.Rxf8 even though I knew it should win, perhaps rather easily. I felt there was room to miscalculate, as black tries to create counterplay with the active king and queenside majority without white immediately being able to keep pushing the g-pawn. I recalled a lucky save I had last summer, with black in a similar type of exchange down ending. Maybe that had a psychological impact and talked me out of playing this line. Ke4? This was also the main thing I saw, when deciding on 46.Rg5, including the remaining moves played in this game. However, shortly after playing my move I realized black had a better try in 46…Be4! Already I was slightly regretting Kg3, followed by Rg5, and it was even bothering me that I hadn’t yet worked out a clear win, though 47.Bc3+ followed by probably 48.Rg8 should still be winning. 47.Bc3 b4 48.ab4 cb4 49.Re5+ Kd3 50.Re1! Black resigns 1-0
And now, game 2 has been won. The first game ended on move 26 and a second game began on move 27. This was a hard lesson for me, regarding being overly cute or fancy, maybe slightly alleviated by the final outcome. Hope you enjoyed seeing how it’s possible to win two games in one – against a GM. Just don’t promote to a bishop, like me!
After a tough stretch in the middle of the Southwest Class, I had 4/6 but still had a 2600+ FIDE performance. I have played enough GMs, titled players, and foreigners to satisfy the technical requirements. “All” that was left was good play and some luck. 2/3 or 2.5/3 in the last three rounds would get me a GM Norm. Deep breath.
In round 7, I got white against IM Zurab Javakhadze (2430 FIDE, 2504 USCF). This game was, in a nutshell, not what I was expecting…
Up to this point, everything was relatively normal. 11… f5 doesn’t work on account of 12.exf5 Rxf5 13.g4, but black could choose to play 11… Bxf3 12.Qxf3 Nd4 13.Qd1 c6 14.Ba2 Bg5 or 11… Nd4 12.g4 Nxf3+ 13.Qxf3 c6!, after which white doesn’t have much. Instead, my opponent played the seemingly natural 11… Qd7?? running into the Puzzle Rush tactic 12.Nxe5!
I had seen this one coming for a while. Black is losing a pawn no matter what he does. On top of that, it’s a strong central pawn, and white will also have the bishop pair afterwards. I think it’s totally reasonable to say that black is just lost here.
I can’t remember the last time I had a winning position after only 12 moves, and especially against an IM… How much more luck could go my way??
If I didn’t venture into the world of chess superstitions, this article would be a scam. Before this tournament, my personal chess superstitions didn’t really go beyond the realm of lucky pens. The pen I was using this tournament hadn’t served me so well before but was now doing an excellent job. I so wasn’t going to change it. There was, however, the possibility of using my lucky shirt.
The World U16 Olympiad in November was a rough tournament for me to say the least, but there was one highlight: beating the top seeds Uzbekistan in a huge upset. I therefore used the same logic I have with lucky pens to wear the same shirt I was wearing that match for the last day, when I sure wanted a bit of luck…
In round 8, I got black against GM Kamil Dragun (2589 FIDE, 2668 USCF). I didn’t back down at all, and I’m really glad I did that. Unfortunately, my nerves weren’t the problem—my brain was…
I had just scraped out of some complications—and a bit of trouble—to reach this position, which really didn’t seem that dangerous. However, white a) has the d-file, b) can get his pawns moving more easily on the kingside, and c) can possibly tie black down to the a-pawn. Still, after a reasonable plan of action like 26… f5 27.Ra4 Re7, black should be holding his own.
Instead of playing on the kingside, however, I decided to play on the queenside and tie white’s pieces down there. That really didn’t work out. The game went 26… Rb8 27.Kc2 a5 28.Ra4 Rcb5 29.Rb1
Ok, what next…? White will simply play c4 and start pushing black back. The best course of action here is still to play 29… f5! 30.c4 Rc5 31.Kc3 Kf7 32.Rba1 Ra8, after which black is a bit worse but things aren’t too bad. Instead, I went for more counterplay with 29… Rd5, which just turned out not to work. After 30.c4 Rd4 31.Kc3, I realized that 31… Rbd8 32.Rxa5 Rd3+ 33.Kb4 isn’t so great for me, though after 33… f6! black can still put up resistance. I backed down with 31… Ra8, being under the illusion that I could save the a-pawn. After 32.b3 Re4 33.Ra1 Re2 34.Rxa5, I found myself totally busted. I threw in the towel a few moves later.
Did I just ruin my GM norm? I should’ve crawled into a hole after this, but I didn’t. I just… brushed this off.
Now for some drama. My performance dropped below 2600, but the norm wasn’t gone. I needed to beat a 2400+ opponent to get my performance back above 2600. But would I even get to play such an opponent? I honestly didn’t really care. Yes, I did want to get such a pairing, but I wasn’t stressed out. Here are a few reasons…
My rating is still far away from reaching 2500; if I were 2490, it would have been a totally different story…
There’s no doubt in my mind that on the way to 2500, I’ll have my fair share of norm chances if I keep playing like this
GM won’t be the end of my chess journey—it’s just a step on the way up, though a huge step at that.
As the wallcharts for round 8 were incomplete, it was impossible to figure out whom I would play; the best I could do was to make educated guesses with the incomplete results at hand. And as it is often the case with the last round, the pairings didn’t come up until after the round was scheduled to start. I did the only reasonable thing—I prepared for a couple players whose ratings would give me a shot for the norm. And in the end… I got lucky with the pairings: I was white against IM Kacper Drozdowski (2490 FIDE, 2562 USCF). This was the third time when I was in a situation where I needed to win to get a GM Norm, the first time was at the Philly Open in April 2017 and the second time at the Washington International in August 2018. I had lost both times before, but this game was different…
The opening had gone well for me, as I had established a solid bind in the center and was already going on the offensive with 14.g4. Black is already in a tight spot here. Attempts to lash out with 14… g5 won’t work: white has 15.Qh3 or even 15.Nd5! (with the idea 15… exd5 16.Nf5 with a strong attack). 14… h6 15.h4 g5 is even riskier. Black’s best chance may be to sit tight with 14… g6, but that doesn’t look pleasant…
Instead, my opponent played 14… Rfd8?, which looks logical but won’t be stopping white’s attack. After 15.g5 Ne8 16.Qg3, the game became one-way traffic: I played Rac1, reinforcing my position, played f5, got my knights on f5 and d5 after he recaptured exf5, won a pawn, etc. I won.
I honestly wasn’t so nervous this game and only started getting a bit shaky when I knew I was winning and choosing between plenty of very good options. Fortunately, this only meant that I double checked my calculations more often than usual and played very accurately.
And that’s how I became a really happy camper. Yes, the third time was the charm with getting a GM Norm—and what was officially the highest FIDE performance in my life (2610)! My fall-winter slump was finally over.
Hi everyone! Apologies for a bit of an extended absence, the last weeks have been very busy for me (in a good way). Three weekends ago, I played in a tournament up in Maryland as a warm-up for the VA State Scholastic Tournament two weekends ago. Then, last weekend, I traveled to Schaumburg, Illinois – slightly west of Chicago, IL – to play in the K-12 High School National Championships. Overall, there were many ups and downs, and probably more downs than ups all said and done. Today, I want to share some sequences in a few of the games I’ve played recently that will hopefully provide some instruction for all of you.
We start with a big of a tragicomedy from the recent Nationals tournament. In this game, I played White against Nikhil Kumar, a young 2370 rated player that I’ve played once before – however, in that game, I was Black, so this was new territory. I was out of book early in the opening, but it went well despite no prior knowledge. I eventually reached a superior position with a crucial decision ahead of me in terms of how to defend a piece.
I don’t want to let my d-pawn recapture on e6 if Black trades, so I wanted to defend my knight – the question was, how? The two moves I came down to were either Re1 or Nfd4. Each move has its benefits. Re1 brings the rook into the game on the open file and threatens to penetrate deep in Black’s territory. Nfd4 would ensure that a knight recaptures on e6, thus keeping control over a lot of squares that Black’s rook wants to go to, especially d8, and it would also avoid losing a tempo if Black tries to push g5-g4-g3 and attack on f2. In the end, I believed that the pros of Nfd4 outweighed those of Re1 as I was especially worried about f2. However, that ended up being the worse choice (although both were still advantageous). According to the silicon engine, the best line was 21. Re1 g4 22. Nh4! g3 23. Kf1 and the evaluation is more than +2. White can sidestep any fork threats and allow Black to capture on f2 while the rook and knight(s) feast on Black’s weakened kingside. I missed the idea of Nh4, attacking f5 while preserving pawn structure integrity; instead, I only saw Nfd4 after g4, which would protect the f2 pawn at the cost of running into doubled pawns after the bishop captures on d4, but even this was apparently not that bad. After all that, in the game, I managed to miss 21. … Nxe6 22. Nxe6 c6, after which I had to give up the advantage with 23. dxc6.
Later in the game, after much simplification and time scramble, I arrived at this position in the endgame with it being my turn.
Black just played 36. … a5. It’s a clear draw after 37. gxf5, which keeps Black’s king near the kingside and I can just maintain opposition. However, I managed to confuse a few different lines I had calculated and played 37. a4, which completely loses. Granted, I had 6 seconds on the clock, but this was still going to be relatively simple to hold, as long as I played 37. gxf5. After 37. a4, the win for Black is easy after 37. … f4, gaining opposition and putting me in zugzwang. The game went 38. Kc3 Kc5 39. Kb3 Kd4 40. Kb2 Kd3 before I resigned. I was definitely upset with myself after the game, but alas, life goes on. In any case, the lesson to be learned is endgames, endgames, endgames! I know for sure I will be trying to get back into studying endgames after this comedy of errors. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but for those of you that are interested, I highly recommend Mark Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual.
Another game of note occurred at the state tournament during the previous weekend. Once again, I was White, but this time playing a lower rated around 1920. After Black went out of book a few moves prior, we reached this position:
I just played 19. Nf4 to threaten Nxd7 followed by capturing on e6 to win a pawn. At this point, Black played the tricky 19. … Ng4 with the idea that, if I take the knight on g4, Black will capture my knight on f4, and all I achieve is trading a pair of pieces. However, I had seen this idea before playing Nf4, and I blitzed out 20. Qh3, to which he responded with the best (albeit ugly) move 20. … Nh6. The critical move is 20. … Rxf4, after which I calculated the following lines: 21. Qxh7+ Kf8 22. Qh8+ Ke7 23. Qxg7+ Kd8 (23… Ke8 24. Qg6+ Kf8 (24… Ke7 25. Qg5+ Rf6 26. f4 with Nxg4 coming next) 25. Nxg4) 24. Qg5+ Qe7 25. Qxf4 and, in the end, I’m up an exchange.
A few moves later, we arrived at this crucial position after 24. … Qe7:
There were several ways to progress, and I ended up choosing a move that was not objectively best, but it gave me a comfortable position I could play easily. As a lesson, don’t always get caught up trying to find the absolute best move in a position. While it usually helps, sometimes, the time spent on such efforts isn’t worth it. In this position, I knew my position was better due to superior piece positioning, so I went for a simple variation – 25. Bxf5 exf5 26. Qf3 – that simplifies the position a bit and realizes the advantage of the two knights with many holes in Black’s camp. I also saw the possibility of 25. Nxd7 Qxd7 26. Rxe6 Qxe6 27. Bxf5 Qf7, but as I was somewhat low on time, I didn’t want to risk losing too much time over trying to win a single pawn. This approach of playing a comfortable move quickly ended up paying off as a few moves later my opponent blundered an exchange and the conversion was fairly easy.
Overall, as I did mention, my performance in these tournaments was less than ideal, but it just motivates me to work harder for next time. Finally getting back to playing as also helped, and I hope that being more in touch will help me in the near future. In other news, my last college decisions come out in less than a week, so I may have a better idea about where I might be going, and I might update you guys on that news next time. As for now, good luck in your games, and, as always, thanks for reading!
After the first 3 rounds of the Southwest Class, I had 3/3, which included wins against 2 GMs. This was obviously a perfect start. However, in the next three rounds, aka the “middlegame” of the tournament, I got hit with some serious turbulence.
In round 4, I got black against GM Razvan Preotu (2522 FIDE, 2590 USCF). I lost a pawn out of a bad opening, but fortunately I had serious compensation. I scraped my way back to equality, and then…
This knight endgame is slightly more pleasant for white, but black shouldn’t be in any trouble here, right…? I decided to activate my knight here with 45… Nf7, though 45… a5, preventing white from playing b4, may have been easier. After 46.b4, I made an inexplicable decision: I played 46… Kb6? allowing white to play 47.b5. I instead should’ve played 46… a6, and black really has no problems after that one. For some reason, however, I thought I should also be holding easily after my move.
Now black is starting to get a bit cramped. Over the next few moves I continued to drift: 47… Kc7 48.Kc5 Ng5 49.Nf4 Ne4+ 50.Kb4 Ng5 51.Ka5 Kb7 52.g3 Kc7 53.Ka6 Kb8 54.Nd3
Here I played 54… Ne4? which is officially a mistake. Instead, I had to play 54… Nf7, which ties the white knight down to the e5-pawn and takes the d6-square away from the white king if he plays like he did in the game. Black should be holding here, but after my move he’s in huge trouble. My opponent correctly played 55.g4! Ka8 56.b6 axb6 57.Kxb6 Kb8.
After 58.Kc6 Kc8 59.Nf4, black is probably lost, since after 59… Ng5 60.Kd6, white is winning the e6-pawn. Instead, my opponent played it the other way around with 58.Nf4? Ng5 59.Kc6, walking into 59… Nf7! hitting the e5-pawn. If white retreats with 60.Nd3, black can simply play 60… Kc8 and white can’t get through. My opponent played 60.Nxe6 and offered a draw, which I accepted.
Phew! One of these days I’ll lose a game for playing like this, and it’ll serve me damn right.
3.5/4, 3 GMs and 3 foreigners down. Not bad!
In round 5, I got white against the top seed GM Jeffery Xiong (2666 FIDE, 2750 USCF). Rating-wise this game would be a tough order, but I had white and was in good form…
So far, everything was all right. I didn’t get any advantage with white, but I wasn’t worse either. Still, there were a lot of pieces on the board, and anything could happen. After the best move 20.Be4!, improving my bishop and attacking the b7-pawn, the positon is around equal. I instead played 20.Bf5?! and missed the tricky move 20… Nh4
I should’ve played 21.Bxb6, but I was worried about 21… Qxd1 22.Raxd1 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 fxe6.
This isn’t so pleasant for white, but in reality, the position isn’t far from equal after 24.Kh2 or 24.Re4 Nxh3+ 25.Kg2 Ng5 26.Rb4. Look what I did instead:
21.Nxh4? Bxd4 22.Qg4? Nd3 23.Red1 Bxf2+ 24.Kh2
I admittedly missed the very strong 24… Rc4!, but even after a move like 24… Ne5 black is much better. After 25.Qf3 Qxh4 26.Bxe6 fxe6 27.Qxd3 Qf4, I went down pretty quickly.
Okay, what was that…? It was my first setback, and considering that I still had a 2600+ performance, I managed to brush this game off pretty easily.
In round 6, I got black against IM Omer Reshef (2491 FIDE, 2566 USCF). I didn’t hold back at all in this wildly complicated game. My silicon friend points that white did have a big advantage at a few moments, but to my human eyes, the position was just unclear.
Material is technically equal here, but white has a central pawn mass versus black’s b-pawns. There’s quite a commotion in the center of the board. And this was after the position calmed down a bit! I honestly wasn’t sure which result I was playing for, but I knew I had to act fast. I played the logical 23… Re6 but missed some details after 24.Qf4, after which I came to the conclusion that I was in trouble. I actually had 24… b5!, a move which I don’t think I even considered, at my disposal. Black has threats including Nxc3 Bxc3 Bd6 and Bb2. White is actually the one who has to play for equality with 25.Qd4! Bb2 26.Qxd8 Rxd4 27.Bd4.
Instead of that, I made a serious mistake with 24… Nxc3. The game continued 25.Bxc3 Bd6 (25… Rxe2 26.Qg4 g6 27.Rd7 Qc8 28.Qd4 is also unpleasant for black) 26.Qd4 Qg5
27.Rd7! attacking the bishop would’ve given me a run for my money, since I simply won’t have time to take the e2-pawn. My opponent played 27.Rxb7 instead, which is strong but not best. After 27… Bc5 28.Qf4 Qxf4 29.gxf4 Rxe2 30.d4 Bd6, the dust settled.
White is going to be a pawn up once he collects the b3-pawn, and he’ll have a dangerous passed d-pawn. This is far from easy for black, but it could’ve been worse. Though my play wasn’t the best, after defending for 55 moves, I managed to make a draw.
1/3 in this phase of the tournament wasn’t ideal, but it was a decent result given my opposition. I still had a 2600+ performance, was gaining plenty of rating, and was having a good time. Now all that was needed for a GM Norm was to maintain a 2600+ performance. By my estimates, I would need to score 2/3 or 2.5/3 in the last 3 rounds, which is obviously much easier said than done.