Round 3 – Wednesdays December 2010

I played Dean as Black, our second game with me playing Black, and once again a Max-Lange Attack. Last time Dean followed the book a little deeper with 8.BxNc6, but this time he decided to deviate with 8.Nc3? I didn’t play the strongest response which was 8…Nxd4, 9.Bxd7 Qxd7, 10.Qd4 Bc5 where the queen is skewered against the upcoming 11…Bxf2+ (protected by the Ne4).

My original intention was to simply play 9.Bd2 NxBd2 and then win the e5 pawn, which is also strong, but the Nxf2+ looked like more fun and is actually best if played right. In any case, it only took a single innacuracy for the game to really fold. Looks like Bf4, and then Re1 was best, but played in the reverse order had catastrophic results for White.

The more interesting game turned out to be the ending between Mark and Dragan. Mark was up two pawns in a rook ending but Dragan even managed to sac a pawn to split up his pawns and from 3 pawns down came back to create a winning position – I showed him where he passed up a win, after the game, but he had only 9 seconds. Dragan forced the stalemate draw with 9 seconds on his clock to Mark’s 20 odd seconds. hehe. Crazy. Needless time-presssure for both sides. Interestingly enough, Mark switched to Grob’s Attack (g4) for that game and seemed to have some understanding of it.

Dean took as much time as I did and since it was so few moves, it wasn’t difficult at all to finish the game with still half an hour on the clock. I made the first 8 moves in 5 minutes, but slowed down radically after that as there was no pressure on the clock or board.

After the game, I explained to him how to play that variation as White, and now that I look at the book play, if he simply follows what I explained to him, he should be able to draw against me as White with not much problem. hehe. Sort of funny, but yeah, that line requires at least that much homework, not much but enough to know the idea behind the line (marching the f-pawn down the board f3,f4,f5,f6).

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Round 3 – Wednesdays December 2010

  1. Bxc6 looks much better than Nc3. 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. O-O Bc5 10. f3 looks equal.
    Nice sac on f2, I really liked it. Bf4, then Re1 is better, but White still lose without two pawns and with the open king – 13. Bf4 Qf5 14. Re1+ Kf8 15. Kg1 d4 16. Bxc6 Bxc6 17. Re5 Qd7 18. Nd5 Bd6 ( 18… Bxd5 Qxd4 ) 19. Bd6 Rh5 20. Bxf4 Nxf4.

  2. Actually, 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. O-O NxNc3 10.bxN Bxc3 11.Rb1 is simply winning a pawn for Black. There is no Qg4 sort of attack to offset this. Insterestingly enough 9…BxNc3 would be a mistake that gives White the advantage as White will get Ba3 in before 0-0.

    The great thing I like about chosing a line with complications is that I miss some of the critical continuations, so it gives me a chance to improve and know where I need to improve. It’s not like the situations where it’s really stale and you can know your move and just walk around looking at other people’s games (although I did that) – instead, there is more to search for.

    I feel like I sort of want my opponents to have to calculate as much as possible because I think that this is where perhaps they wouldn’t do so well, particularly players who already do well at finding natural moves, such as my opponent last Thursday. Granted, after the Qxf2+ it’s a winning position for Black, and White is objectively hopeless, so perhaps not the best example but still a practical one.

    If we had played a more boring, bookish continuation, he could have possibly gotten the upper hand.

    He said that ..Nxf2+ had a lot of shock value, as he was not expecting it. I couldn’t play a game like this on FICS as it takes too much time to find that move, and one reason why I don’t play as well on FICS. It’s interesting that I would say that I have more time OTB to find this sort of move as against a faster moving opponent it would be more difficult to find the best continuation unless having the Kotov discipline to calculate each variation only once.

    I did calculate accurately the first time, but kept re-calculating the same variations to see if there was something I missed. This is a big mistake as the important thing is to do it once so as to be able to look for new variations/moves. For example, a different opponent could have blitzed out the seemingly more obvious (though not any better) Nd4xNc6 instead of KxNf2, and then I need to find the continuation ..Qh4 instead of recapturing on c6, which I already knew to be only equal, so I don’t know if I would have found …Qh4 OTB or not.

    RollingPawns, thanks! 🙂

    I got lucky that I stumbled upon a bad move of his. Silman’s test is “What 3 good things does this move do for my position?” Conversely you could turn that around and ask with his Nc3 “What 3 bad things does this do for my position?” 1. It gives up the e5 pawn, 2. Drops a pawn on c3, 3. Allows Nxf2+ fork.

    If I lose tonight, then I will probably take two last round byes for the Thursday tournament and only play on Wednesdays. That one game a week is a great social outlet for me, as little socializing as it may or may not be, and regardless of whether I study chess at all for the rest of the week. Plus, I like the playing venue best on Wednesdays, and also no more tired mistakes on Thursdays, if I don’t play against those fresh players there. 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s