In today’s free game analysis post, I wanted to discuss a game sent to me by an aspiring chess player from the Virginia Beach area. The game we will review today was played on chess.com, but nonetheless has great instructional value for some of chess^summit’s less-experienced followers. Let’s have a look!
This being said, the position doesn’t promise either side an advantage and relies on one side agitating the balance. The problem for White is that the pin on f3 is hard to break. Should the queen move, the f-pawns become doubled after Black takes on f3. Without a light squared bishop, White’s ability to flexible is extremely limited. Using the prompting from the engine and the main lines following 6… h5, I think the ergonomically correct way to hanldle the position was to play 7. d3, with the idea of getting the knight to d2.
This particular structure gives White a lot more long term play. Without a knight on c3, White can consider a future central break of c2-c3 and d3-d4, while simultaneously not having to worry about the pin on f3 as much. While Black is solid, I think the second player still has to prove equality to some degree here.
And with that theoretical side note, we return to the game.
12.bxa5 Rxa5 13.Bb2 =+
16.Nxb5 cxb5 17.c4?
17…bxc4 18.dxc4 Nxe4 19.Qe2 Bxf3 20.gxf3 Qh4?
The players simplified, but 21 moves later White lost on time in a completely winning position. That being said, I think the main points for this game have already been made.
Black wasn’t just slightly better, he was strategically winning! However by rushing into things with b5, and getting impatient by sacrificing material for no clear compensation, he quickly fell on the wrong side of the evaluation. As for White, his initial poor position derived from a lack of opening understanding and thus an inability to find a clear plan.
So the key word for today’s game? Relax. Both sides at points had opportunities to improve the quality of the game with clear-cut calculation.
If you liked today’s free game analysis, make sure to send your games to firstname.lastname@example.org so I can review them in my next post!
I hadn’t planned to play a rated game until Saturday’s Pittsburgh Chess League finale, but when I got the email saying my Tuesday night class had been canceled, I quickly found myself playing an extra rated game against a local expert from Carnegie Mellon University at the Pittsburgh Chess Club.
Usually when I post a game to chess^summit, I make sure the selection has some sort of specific instructional purpose. That being said, I can’t say that this game can be marginalized into such a general category. Even though he fell behind early, my opponent did really well to hold and even missed a few chances to equalize!
So if today has a theme, let it be complicated positions. Honestly I can’t remember winning a game this difficult (and almost blowing it too!).
1. This move doesn’t develop or get Black’s king safe.
Okay, this is obvious, but still a valid point. By postponing the fundamentals, Black risks falling behind positionally should the attack not pan out.
2. Black cannot push …f7-f5.
This is the main problem with this move. If the f-pawn is pushed, Black gives White an outpost on g5 for a knight or a bishop.
Knowing this, I opted for 10. f3, giving me the option of Rf1-f2 if needed. Furthermore, if Black tries …h5-h4, g3-g4 can now shut down the position.
10.f3 Bxg2 11.Kxg2 h4
As I mentioned before, the g5 square becomes weak, yet it’s not so easy to exploit. At this point, I began to look at 14. gxf5, but I didn’t like it on account of a few reasons:
1. The g-file opens
Even if this is tenable, I do feel like Black is getting the play he intended with his opening choice. With the g-file open, Black’s plan is to play … f5-f4 and queenside castle to bring his d8-rook over to g8. This is a lot of pressure, which brings me to my next point.
2. I’m not punishing Black!
Remember back when Black played 9… h5 when I said my opponent wasn’t following opening principles? 14. gxf5 not only fails to capitalize on this detail, it actually rewards Black for his play!
So this being said I played the anti-positional move
Taking away from the center! But it turns out here that matters aren’t so trivial, Black’s king is still in the center, so opening the e-file with a future f3-f4 or d3-d4 push may be lethal. It was here that I noticed that Black’s weakness wasn’t the square on g5, it was the f5 square! By taking in this manner, the structure has changed; so a pawn on g4 helps support a knight on f5 and close the g-file. As my knight reroutes to f5, my bishop will find the right moment to go into g5 and cramp Black’s position.
And the best part? 14. exf5 was one of the computer’s best moves!
So Black opted for the stingiest move, but it also once again neglects development and king saftey. Immediately I wanted to play 16. gxf5:
The concept of cousre is to break Black’s center, leaving his king out in the open. This all works if Black plays along: 16… Nxf5 17.Nxf5 Qxf5 18.f4
Because of the discovery threats on the queen, castling for Black comes at the cost of a pawn. However, not all captures are forcing! I soon realized that my dystopic outlook on the position was not only incorrect, but potentially losing after Black’s amazing resource, 16… Nh6!
This shifts the game from dynamic play to static play. With 16. gxf4? I’ve actually given up any chance of securing the f5 outpost and opened the g-file for Black’s rook. Trying to stop Black from castling with 17. Bg5 still looks grim after 17… Nhxf5 =+.
And here it’s clear that Black is simply better with no real counterchances for White.
So I had to be less direct, yet still keeping the position in a dynamic state. With my next move, I highlighted that the f5 pawn is still weak.
My c3-knight was no longer planning on reaching d5 since Black can play …c7-c6 now, so trading it for Black’s best piece was appealing. Black took drastic measures with his next move, but he had several options to consider.
After some post-game analysis, I’ve come to the opinion that this was the best shot to equalize. While it creates light squared weaknesses, it neutralizes my grip on f5 and g5, while blocking in my bishop on c1. I had seen this during the game, and thought I had found a tactical resource in 17. Nxd4 fxg3 18. Re1 g2+ 19. Kg1 0-0-0 20. Nf5
But after some research with Stockfish, here it’s my play that’s burned out, and soon I will find that the g2 pawn is not protecting my king, it’s a protected passed pawn! All endgames favor Black here.
However, my opponent didn’t play this move when originally given the opportunity, so he must have thought the assessment was the same as before.
16… Nxe2 17.Qxe2 fxg4 18.fxg4
With evasive play, Black has avoided the loss of a pawn, but even after 18…0-0-0, my opponent will find his lack of development and counterplay concerning. My knight will find the f5 square, and my bishop, g5. White’s position plays itself.
This isn’t really a move for Black, but it does a nice job of illustrating his dilemmas after 17. Nxd4 exd4 18. Re1+
The win still needs work, but you get the idea. A trade on d4 eliminates Black’s ability to pressure the long dark squared diagonal, and opening the e-file will favor me.
So my opponent, uncomfortable with his options, played a move I hadn’t considered.
16. … Nxf3?!
The idea that opening the long diagonal will give Black strong play. However, this is the first innacuracy of the game! With this line my opponent forces me to seal in his bishop and open the e-file.
17.Rxf3 Qc6 18.Nd4!
18…exd4 19.Nxf5 Be5 20.Bg5! +=
Black really needed to try 22… Qd5 to force me to play slower.
White’s plan would be to play Qe2-e4, trade queens, and go into an endgame with small winning chances. But with my next move, my opponent realized how active I had become.
The computer gave me an option here that holds on to my grasp on the position with 26. Rf1 Rh7 27. Kg1 getting out of the pin 27… Nf6 28. Ng3 += with a slight edge.
I do have to say, so far the game has been very complex, yet there have not been any missed tactics by either side. Coming from the position of strength, I have to say this is a testament to my opponent’s defensive resourcefulness to find holding moves each turn. However, with the queen trade on c6, I must win again – this time however with an advantage on the clock.
26. … Qxc6 27.Rxc6 Kd7 28.b5
29.Bxh6 Rxh6 30.Nxd4
I had to make sure that this trade worked, and I think again my opponent found the best resource in 30… Rhf6. Let’s quickly look through some of Black’s choices:
30… Rxf3 31. Nxf3 Rf6 32. Nxe5+ does not win a piece! Black can prolong the fight with 32… Ke6!
…and White must stop the threat of mate on f1 with 33. Kg1, meaning that this is the position that must be understood. While Black may still be able to hold, I assessed that my advantage had increased since Black must give up the c7 and a7 pawns (the importance of a prophylactic measure like 28. b5!). Since I believed I had better winning chances, I was okay with this position.
So simplification does not come to Black’s aid. Black can’t afford to be passive either since the backward 30… Rhh8? has a tactical problem. Can you find it?
Here I had found 31. Rxf8 Rxf8 32. Rxc7+!! since now 32… Kxc7 is met with 33. Ne6+ with a winning minor piece endgame. Black can’t save himself with 32… Ke8, threatening mate on f1 and the knight on d4, because 33. Rc8+ forces a trade of rooks, and now I must find Nd4-f5, followed by d3-d4 to limit Black’s ability to attack my h2 pawn.
It’s clear that only White can be better, and of course I knew my opponent wouldn’t go for it. There was one last option I didn’t consider until after I had made my move in 30… Bxd4?! the concept being that my king is stuck on h1 and the constant threat of mate is a problem for me.
While this may be a potential drawing resource in other positions, my b5 pawn makes c7 a permanent backwards pawn and target. So in the line 31. Rxf8 Re6 32. Rc1, Black cannot both be active and defend c7 as 32… Re3 33. Rf7+ still gives White reasonable winning chances.
But as I said, I thought my opponent found the most aggressive try despite his time troubles.
31.Nf5 Rg6 32.Rc4 Rb8?
Black had much better in the more flexible 32… Rfg8 33.Ne3 d5 34.Ra4
And while Black remains a pawn down, he has reasonable drawing chances. Having a bishop in the center of the board alone should be enough compensation for the extra g-pawn, not to mention, my queenside stucture is also quite hideous.
33.Rxh3 Rxb5 34.Rh7+ Ke6 35.h3
35…Rb1+ 36.Kg2 Rb2+ 37.Kf3 Rxa2 38.Rcxc7
42.Ra7 a3 43.Ra5+ Ke6
44.d4 Bh2 45.d5+ Kd7 46.Ra7+ Kd8 47.Rb4
Missing the simplest win in 47. Ra8+ Kd7 48. Rac8, and Black must give up an exchange to stop the threat of Rc4-c7#. But at this point I was already playing my opponent’s clock – with 8 seconds left, he can never hold this, right?
47. … Rb2 48.Rxb2?? =
Here I thought that my opponent could make no progress with the b2 pawn, but with it on a dark square, his bishop can hold it until the rook comes to the rescue. So as I promised, one blunder… moral of the story? Don’t look at your opponent’s clock! If I had just spent 1 more minute, I would have realized that 48. Rxb2 allows too much play and that 48. Rba4 is a lot simpler.
48. … axb2 49.Rb7 Be5 50.Ke4 Kc8 51.Rb5
As my opponent correctly pointed out in our post-mortem, …Kc8-c7, followed by …Rf6-f8-b8, not only is the best mechanism but now I have to worry about losing the game entirely. White should be fine if I bring my king to c2, but my kingside pawns become weak and won’t be able to promote with the bishop on e5 guarding both g7 and h8. But I got lucky…
Here my opponent resigned after realizing my rook is protected on b4, and my f-pawn is soon queening. Tough game and my opponent did well to hold, but he simply just made more mistakes than me.
As I said before this (really, really long) analysis, there really isn’t a particular theme I can sum up here. But there were some key points:
Early attacks mean neglecting development. Sometimes the best defense is to find ways to punish your opponent for not following the fundamentals.
Captures aren’t a truly forcing move. In this game, there were two points where a pawn takes pawn move could be ignored, and thus change the entire evaluation of the position.
This brings me to my next point, always evaluate who is statically better each position. This constantly changed throughout the game, so it changed the focus for each player’s goal as well.
Time trouble for your opponent is not time trouble for you! Say what you want, but I’m going to kick myself for this Rxb2 move more than I’ll pat myself on the back for winning. Next time I won’t be so lucky.
I thought this was a really interesting game, and I hope you did too. For me, winning (despite some errors) was a great way to rebound from the Pittsburgh Open and start thinking about my summer calendar – specifically the US Junior Open!
This past weekend I played in a small, three round tournament in Pittsburgh to prepare for the Pittsburgh Open in two weeks. Unfortunately (for me at least), the U1800 and open sections got merged, so I only had one opportunity to play someone over 2000, in a game that went south really quickly. My two wins though were against much lower rated opponents, and highlight many problems for players rated 1000-1600. For today’s post, I wanted to share my round 2 win over a 1300 rated player.
Before the blunder though, here is what I had anticipated:
So what’s the lesson? If you are going to play a strategic opening, you must understand the concepts to play it in tournaments. Here my opponent knew a general set-up for the Closed Sicilian, but failed to demonstrate any thematic knowledge of the opening.
To follow up on last Tuesday’s video, I put together an analysis on the Be3 Najdorf, with improvements for Black. For those of you that missed the video, make sure to check out White’s refutation of my set-up:
For those of you who saw it, here are some of the highlights:
I could have tried to insert …Nb6 earlier, with the idea of reaching c4, but even in those lines, my light squared bishop is slightly misplaced. Why did I go for this set-up? Let’s take a field trip back to the third video I ever posted to chess^summit, back in October 2014:
In that game, the set-up was justified in that game because White not only wasted several tempi but also with a bishop on e2, the Qf2 idea was never possible. That game was actually one of the last times I employed the Najdorf, so I never really worried about going beyond the analysis I had at that time.
So that brings us back to the tabiya position. As I mentioned before, Black’s bishop is slightly misplaced on b7, so here 8…Be6 is the much more logical step going forward. Note how I can still play for …d7-d5 if the opportunity presents itself, but I also get more space on the queenside, while eying the b3 knight for a potential trade. With the bishop on b7, White can play a2-a3 to stop the b-pawn push without worrying about opening the c-file.
One thing you should note about this opening is that unlike my other analysis posts, the calculation must be much more concrete. The Najdorf is not for the faint-hearted, and will punish the tactically weak!
What does this game tell us about the Be3 lines of the Najdorf? Well, it’s extremely tactical, and Black can’t play submissively if he has any aspirations of winning. Another aspect I will mention is that to play the Najdorf takes a lot of preparation – for each side; working with computers, reading manuscripts, analysis far deeper than the post I have provided you with today.
I stopped playing the Najdorf shortly after breaking 1900, because I found that it simply put too much emphasis on opening knowledge when playing 2000+ rated opponents, and the Bg5 lines alone gave me enough of a headache to stop. If you’re looking for a fun, easy opening to learn, this definitely isn’t it.
It’s opening experimentation week, and this week the Najdorf is on deck! Check out my live video where I try to play against the London Attack, but my opponent finds the refutation against my whole set-up!
Make sure to check back for Friday’s analytical post on the Be3 variations of the Najdorf!
For those of you who may recall, I did a video + analysis post on the Berlin last month, and today I decided to try a similar format for a new opening. I played 1 d4, hoping for a Queen’s Gambit or Nimzo-Indian, but my opponent instead tried a Dutch. In an effort to be different, and have something new to talk about Tuesday, I tried 2. Nc3 to immediately threaten e2-e4.
After going into a “Leningrad Structure”, I tried a thematic h2-h4-h5 push to bust open my opponent’s king for what should have been a routine win. However, being careless in my calculations, I missed a simple way to extract my opponent’s king and had to find a cool mating idea later to get the result. See if you can find the win before I did!
Since my opponent didn’t exactly play winning chess, I think on Tuesday, my goal is to answer 2 questions:
1) Why is 2 c4 more common than 2 Nc3 against the Dutch?
2) How is Black supposed to stop the h-pawn push in the Leningrad Dutch – and can White make it even more effective?
In last Sunday’s video, I tried playing 1…e5 in response to the King’s Pawn opening. Without much theoretical knowledge of the Berlin, I quickly got bogged down in a worse position and on the clock. Though I got back into the game with a sacrifice on g4, the position I reached isn’t desirable enough to want to play again. Let’s take a quick recap of what happened:
JoseBautista–leika (G/15 ICC, 2015)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6
4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4
Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nc4?
I’ll stop here since this questionable move already deviates from the Main Line which we will be discussing. When looking for a model game, I was lucky to find the Giri–Vachier-Lagrave match up from the London Chess Classic, in which Anish outplayed Maxime in a critical tiebreak match.
Giri won the game later on move 43, in what was arguably his best game of the tournament. While the victory may have been sweet, it was short-lived, as Maxime went on to win the next two tiebreak games, sending him to the final against Magnus Carlsen.
So what does this game tell us about the Berlin? Let’s take a look at the structure after move 17.
If you’re wondering why so many Grandmasters play the Berlin, you should start here. Structurally, Black is more solid and his king, thanks to the early queen trade is already in the center. With all of his early dynamic play, White has yet to define his structure, leaving his e5 pawn seemingly hyper-extended. If we think about how Vachier-Lagrave attacked Black’s weaknesses (17. Nb5), the threat of the c7 and a7 pawns only slowed Giri’s play but didn’t cause him long term problems, so already that position is at least equal. Let’s take this position to the next level.
Since White decided to give up the bishop pair with 6. Bxc6, we must also take this into consideration. While this minor piece endgame may be arguably tenable, it is clear that again, only Black can play for a win as the bishop dominates white’s knight. So with this assessment, we can say that Black is better in most Berlin Endgames.
Here’s another game where Black proved that solidarity was more important than initiative.
Now with a material advantage, Radjabov has a win to play for in the classical Berlin Endgame. Black went on to win 23 moves later.
So what do these games tell us about playing the Berlin as Black?
The Berlin won’t win games quickly. As evidenced by both games, endgame technique and defence are two critical skills needed to play the Berlin effectively. Black didn’t get an advantage until White erred playing for an edge.
Patience in the key. Remember, the main reason why the Berlin is popular for Black is because the computer gives it a favorable evaluation with the computer. Once the queens come off the board, the game is about strategic gains for either side as White tries to compensate for losing the bishop pair.
A Berlin Endgame is a good endgame. The biggest positive from today’s article. If White can’t effectively prove his compensation, he will be tortured in an uphill positional battle.
For today’s post, I wanted to discuss my transition from being a scholastic player to a regular tournament player. Back in 2007, I broke 1300, and I wasn’t getting a high enough level competition in the tournaments near me. At ten years old, the idea of playing with adults in a weekend tournament was daunting, so I gave it a try at a local club in a few game-a-week ladders. While I only had a handful of games at the Kaissa Chess Club, it definitely gave me some perspective on how chess was different at the next level. For today’s post, I wanted to show how playing adult chess my gameplay over the board.
Before I share my games, let’s discuss what scholastic players gain from becoming regular tournament players:
1)Patience – With adult tournament play, the time controls can be twice as long as standard scholastic tournaments. For me, changing from G/40 to G/90 was especially challenging as I hadn’t really been forced to calculate extensive lines in games. Patience is one of the most important virtues in chess, and in my personal opinion cannot be learned through scholastic play.
2) Chess Etiquette – At scholastic tournaments, almost anything goes. Usually, rules aren’t as strictly enforced, and while poor sportsmanship is frowned upon, it’s not effectively punished. In adult play, there is an expectation that you respect your opponent. This wasn’t really an issue for me, but I have seen younger players not understand the tournament rules (touch-move, etc) or understand proper chess etiquette (this includes stalling in a losing position, making distracting noises, etc).
3) Practical Experience – Once I got to 1100, most of my tournaments would feature four significantly lower rated opponents, and only one real contest. While the euphoria of winning was definitely enjoyable, I didn’t have opponents forcing me to look at new openings or tactical ideas. At such a young age, I think all the winning went to my head and I stopped studying for tournaments. In adult play, any result is possible in any game – and your opponents generally challenge you to find new ways to win. In other words, no more hanging pieces, simple checkmates, and no more basic tactics – the chess starts here.
4) Better Fundamentals – As you’ll see in the games I chose for this article, my understanding of the openings went to the next level. In this article, I will compare how I played the Closed Sicilian in 2007 to how I played the same opening in 2009. While I wasn’t playing grandmaster-level chess at 1300, the progression in my understanding of chess made it possible to reach the next level. Let’s have a look.
Steincamp – Arnold (Kaissa Chess Club Sept-Oct Ladder, 2007)
When I “graduated” from the Kaissa Chess Club, I distinctly remember beating everyone at least once with the exception of my opponent here, Lloyd Arnold, Sr. In this game I was just shy of 1200, while my opponent was just over 1600.
Within the next two years, my understanding of the Closed Sicilian had changed and a lot of that improvement can be traced back to this loss. Here’s a game I had two years later against a slightly higher rated opponent. I don’t remember many games that I played before 2010, but this win was one of them.
Steincamp – Berenstein (Taylor Fox Memorial III, 2009)
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bc4
4. d3 h6?
5…d6 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. O-O Be7 8. f5
8…Bd7 9. Qe1
10. fxg6 fxg6 11. Qg3 g5
12. h4 g4 13. Be3
13…gxf3?? 14. Qg6+ 1-0
What a difference! After being outplayed every move in the first game, I got to teach my opponent a lesson with my new found understanding of the Closed Sicilian. Through learning Black’s thematic ideas, I was able to adjust my play accordingly and become even stronger – something that would have never happened if I didn’t switch to adult play. If you are a scholastic player thinking about making the transition, or a parent unsure if your child is ready to make the switch, I hope this article helps you make the best chess decision and face tougher competition.
This has held true for me since, as I have often “played up” a section to gain practical experience. While it may not seem as fun as winning every game, pushing yourself to play against the toughest competition is the most effective way to get better.
Now that Thanksgiving is over, I think that I should be most thankful for the opportunity I had to compete at the highest level this past weekend in Philadelphia for the National Chess Congress.
For the second time of my career, I decided to compete in the Premier section of a Continental Chess event and going in, everything seemed to be moving in the right direction. I had been winning my weekly games against expert level competition with relative ease, and even my G/15 play seemed to be improving. Not to mention, I had just broken 2600 on chess.com’s tactics trainer. Everything was on the up and up.
Perhaps the first sign that things would be difficult this was when my train took an extra four hours to get from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, followed by the hotel’s fire alarm going off the morning of the first round.
That being said, I was still feeling confident going into my first game against fellow Virginian Andy Samuelson, a player rated over 2300, and coincidentally my chess coach’s former college roommate.
While my opening play up to this point had been dubious up to this point, I still had managed a respectable position, down an exchange but with a central passed pawn for compensation. Here I played 24… Qg7? losing my advantage as White got in 25. Qe3 blocking my advantage and making it difficult for me to reach a favorable endgame. My pawns on e6 and d6 are more of a liability than a threat and are ultimately why I wound up losing the game. But this tournament could have been very different if I had calculated the risky 24… Qxf4!
I overlooked this move because I thought White could quickly find counterplay with 25. Rf1 Qxg4 26. Qf6, but missed that 26… Nd7! holds everything together and preserves Black’s advantage. Though capturing on f4 is risky because the f-file is open long term, I now have two pawns and a piece to justify the rook, and it is my rook that comes to f8 after White retreat the bishop. This isn’t winning yet but definitely would have been a great first step towards getting a point in my column.
That being said, the moral of this game is don’t be afraid to take chances! In chess there is risk, but there is also pure calculation which will always trump positional judgement if accurate. Here I trusted my opponent’s analysis too much and played passively to get on the wrong side of the match. Even with a loss, there was really no need to panic – I still had five more games.
While round 2 was likely the most “boring” match for me, my opponent showed a glimpse of brilliance which I thought was important to share.
Steincamp – Moon (National Chess Congress, 2015)
Out of my theory, I spent over 15 minutes to come up with the move 14. Ba1?! which doesn’t really offer me any improvements. I wanted to make a non-committal move here, and I thought the perhaps this would be helpful as the b2-square opens up for my queen, and should the b-file ever open, I can just play Rc1 -b1. While this move was a good move in an earlier article, the key distinction is that in this game, the b-file isn’t open, so it doesn’t make sense to set my pieces this way. Furthermore, my opponent has the move …d5-d4 at any point, blocking my bishop and effectively trapping it. My opponent could have played this move, but he made a far more prudent move, 14…h6!. I give this move an exclamation because of the psychological effect it has behind it. Since I made a move after 15 minutes of thinking, my opponent made this move in 2-3 minutes to force me to come up with a new plan. He likely knew I was expecting …d5-d4, but with this move, forces me to come up with a new, non-reactive move.
In retrospect, I should’ve traded on d5 and then played the position like a hedgehog with relative balance. Even though I got in a worse position, I held my ground and managed a draw.
Turning the Tables
This is probably the match that I “let” go, but it’s still one of the best games I played the whole weekend.
Iyer – Steincamp (National Chess Congress, 2015)
1…c5 2.Bb2 d6 3.e3 e5
4…Bd7 5.Bxd7+ Qxd7 6.c4
6…Nc6 7.Ne2 Nge7 8.a3
8…g6 9.Nbc3 Bg7 10.Qc2 Rb8
11.O-O O-O 12.Rad1 f5 13.f4 a6
14…b5 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.cxb5 axb5
18.Kh1 Nd5 19.Bc1
19…Rfc8 20.Nbc3 Nd4
22.Nxd5 Nxc1 23.Rxc1 Kh8
Definitely a disappointing result for such strong middlegame play, but as I learned this weekend, every move counts. In this game, it was just the difference between a win and a draw. Later in Round 5, I wouldn’t get so lucky.
The Sole Point
Before I show the critical position of my Round 4 win, I must confess I was truly impressed by my opponent’s ability to play at my level throughout the opening and middlegame. At just 1900, my opponent is proof that anyone can prove to be a tough opponent. Unfortunately, in chess there can only be one winner, and my opponent’s valiant efforts were thwarted in the endgame.
In my estimation, I am the only side that can win, but Black has to help me get there. In this position, I played 28. g4 with the idea of weakening my opponent’s pawn structure and giving my king a route to e4. A move like 28… e6 may have saved face, but in time trouble my opponent tried 28… fxg4?? Though not immediately losing, conceding control of the e4 square will allow my king access to the light squares in the center.
A couple moves later, we reach a winning position for White where I will win a pawn on d4 and soon enough the game. At some point, I will play for f4-f5 to gain access to d5. My opponent fought on but resigned on move 45.
At this point in the tournament, I was sitting pretty at 2/4 with a goal of either 2.5/6 or 3/6 completely attainable. Of the two remaining games, round 5 offered my best chance at reaching that goal.
It’s not enough to be equal, you have to earn equal
Sena – Steincamp (National Chess Congress, 2015)
After trading the e- d- and c- pawns the symmetrical structure suggests a draw, but I’m not out of the hole yet. A simple 19… Be6 would have probably gotten the job done, as the b7 pawn isn’t really hanging since b2 is equally a liability. However, trying to simplify, I got greedy and tried 19… Bd4 20. Bxd4 Qxd4 and offered a draw. I think a few players would be happy with a half point here with White, but my opponent was vigilant with 21. Bd5! The only move offering winning chances. I couldn’t find anything better than 21… Be6 += And White once traded on e6, picked up the pawn on b7 and eventually converted the win.
That left Round 6 as my last chance to reach my goal, but I tried a novelty in the opening that went horribly wrong. While my play was less than stellar, my opponent executed a nice tactical shot that I had completely missed.
Steincamp – Elezi (National Chess Congress, 2015)
With my plan being to push the b-pawn, I used this opportunity to play 14. Qc2 to protect my c3 knight and prepare b4 push. My thought here was that Black’s knight was headed to f6 and then e4, leading to a long-term positional battle, but I couldn’t have been more wrong. 14… e5 15. dxe6 Nxh2!
With all my pieces on the queenside, I am absolutely defenseless to this attack. If I play 16. Kxh2? Qh4+ wins immediately as the rook on e1 is left hanging to the fork. At my level, there is absolutely no way I can reasonably hope to get back into this game.
While my opponent’s display of tactical brilliance is inspiring, I do want to make a note here about his board etiquette. Whenever I adjusted a piece, he would immediately put the piece back on the square and then slam the clock, even though it was my turn. Furthermore, before I resigned my opponent checked his phone in his suit pocket. While this does not justify how I played this game, my takeaway is that if it’s distracting, tell the tournament director. In an effort to be accommodating and tolerant, I allowed my opponent to become intimidating and cross the line of sportsmanship. Here are some useful things to know:
In FIDE, it is unacceptable to adjust your opponent’s pieces on their turn. Period. Furthermore, touching the clock during the opponent’s turn is also a violation.
FIDE leaves phone punishments to the tournament directors, but under FIDE rules it is completely unacceptable for the phone to leave the tournament hall. If the phone was in my opponent’s suit pocket and on, it fulfills that criteria when he left for the bathroom.
I didn’t know about the adjust rule until after the fact, but I chose not to report the phone since I was already completely lost and telling the TD seemed to just postpone a foregone over the board conclusion. In the future, I think the best thing to do is to just be proactive in these situations. Just because my opponent is winning doesn’t make it okay for him to break the rules. While a forfeit win or a time penalty would not have made me happy that round given my play, the rules are there for a reason, and it’s my job as the player to use them.
2/6 isn’t a bad score considering that this was the toughest competition I’d ever faced, but it does show me that there is room to improve before this summer’s US Junior Open in New Orleans. The support I got going into this event from friends, family, chess^summit fans, and GoFundMe was incredible, and I’m looking forward to what the next few months have in store.
Faced with a worse opening set-up, I managed to equalize in a G/15 ICC match after trading my weakest pieces for my opponent’s best pieces. At the critical moment, I used an idea from Yasser Seirawan to earn the half point – watch the video and check it out!