Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Back with a bang!
Sadly, work commitments have kept me away from the London League this season so yesterday marked my first game of the season - and my first competitive OTB game for 9 months!
Sadly, my unbeaten run(!) last season couldn't stave off relegation for my plucky Mushrooms team, so we are in Division 2 this season, but have high hopes of bouncing straight back into the top flight next year. Certainly the team we fielded yesterday had plenty of strength in depth and if we can keep turning the guys out we are in with a good chance.
I felt a bit rusty after such a long lay-off, but I had a shiny new weapon up my sleeve in the shape of the Philidor Defence (I wanted to get away from the Spanish into some less charted territory) and sometimes it is good to come to the board 'fresh'. At any rate it seemed perfectly suited to blunt the ambitions an opponent who I had been warned by my team-mates beforehand, is an extremely dangerous attacker.
It's an example of 'winning ugly' - the game is riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies on both sides, especially as we neared the time control - but a win is a win and, on this occasion, it may just have made the difference and won us the match as well (along with the points garnered by my colleagues, of course!!).
At any rate, it felt good to come back with a win straight away, especially with Black. Here are the moves with just one or two comments.
□C Chandler (Phoenix)
■ M Stockwell (Mushrooms)
London League, Division 2, Board 1
Monday, 8 January, 2007
Philidor Defence
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 (This is probably now the main line of the Philidor) 6.Be2 (The classical approach - the most serious test of Black's set up is thought to be 6.Bf4 followed by Qd2 and 0-0-0, but there is nothing wrong with this) 6...0-0 7.0-0 Re8 (Black sets about the task of attacking White's e4 spearhead) 8.f4 Bf8 (Here 8...c5 may be better, accepting a hole on d5 in return for active pieces) 9.Bf3 Nbd7 (Again, 9...c5 and 10...Nc6 is probably the way to go) 10.Re1 Nc5 11.b4!? (I had barely considered this but the more I looked at it the more I began to worry that I was simply going to get pushed back after e.g. 11...Ne6 12.Nb3!? when Black's pieces are tripping over themselves somewhat. ) 11...Na6!? 12.b5 (I had expected 12.a3 or 12.Rb1, when I was intending to mess things up a bit with 12...c5!?) 12...Nc5 13.Rb1?! (Now this move seems rather pointless) 13...a6 14.a4 axb5 15.axb5 Na4!? (Trying to exploit the slightly over-extended feel to White's position by bringing lateral pressure to bear on his centre) 16.Nxa4 Rxa4 17.c3 Rc4!? (I had quite simply missed that White could play 17.c3 and felt that if the rook retreated White would just have a nice space advantage for nothing. This looked logical, continuing to apply pressure along the fifth rank, and, in the absence of a clear refutation, seems to allow me to realise Black's main aim in this sort of position - to play ...d6-d5) 18.Bd2?! (This looks a little bit passive. White is drifting somewhat at this stage and it is no surprise that the following move gives Black good play) 18...d5! 19.e5 Ne4 (Forced, but also rather effective) 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Qe2 (The immediate tactical justification of Black's play is that 21.Rxe4 can be met by 21...Bf5!) 21...Qd5 22.Rbd1 f5?! (Black is probably objectively better off playing 22...Bc5 when a lot of exchanges in the middle of the board will lead to a likely draw. Although objectively Black is not really much better at this point, I felt I had played better than my opponent and was reluctant to settle for half a point. Having said that, if I had realised the strength of my opponent's 24th move, I doubt I would have been so churlish!) 23.exf6 gxf6 24.f5! (I had badly underestimated this move, but I think I am still OK) 24...Bc5 25.Qg4† (Perhaps White should simply play 25.Be3!?) 25...Kh8 26.Bh6 Rg8 27.Qxe4 Qxe4 28.Rxe4 (Although Black's king is not completely out of the woods - there remain some annoying back-rank tricks - I felt much more comfortable now the queens were off the board) 28...Bxf5 (Looks natural, but there is something to be said for 28...Rxc3, too) 29.Rf4?! (This looked good at the time, but is probably a mistake - 29.Re3! is better) 29...Bg4? (29...Bh3 is stronger) 30.Rc1 Rg6 31.Kf1? (Losing) 31...Bxd4 32.Rxd4 Rxd4 33.cxd4 Rxh6 34.h3? (Making Black's task easier. After 34.Rxc7! Black's task is not trivial) 34...Be6? (Quite what I thought was wrong with 34...Bd7! 35.Rxc7 Bxb5†, I do not know!) 35.Rxc7 Bd5 36.Kf2 Rg6 37.g4 Rg7 38.Rc8† Rg8 and with the time control (move 36) now passed, White resigned.
0-1
Sadly, my unbeaten run(!) last season couldn't stave off relegation for my plucky Mushrooms team, so we are in Division 2 this season, but have high hopes of bouncing straight back into the top flight next year. Certainly the team we fielded yesterday had plenty of strength in depth and if we can keep turning the guys out we are in with a good chance.
I felt a bit rusty after such a long lay-off, but I had a shiny new weapon up my sleeve in the shape of the Philidor Defence (I wanted to get away from the Spanish into some less charted territory) and sometimes it is good to come to the board 'fresh'. At any rate it seemed perfectly suited to blunt the ambitions an opponent who I had been warned by my team-mates beforehand, is an extremely dangerous attacker.
It's an example of 'winning ugly' - the game is riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies on both sides, especially as we neared the time control - but a win is a win and, on this occasion, it may just have made the difference and won us the match as well (along with the points garnered by my colleagues, of course!!).
At any rate, it felt good to come back with a win straight away, especially with Black. Here are the moves with just one or two comments.
□C Chandler (Phoenix)
■ M Stockwell (Mushrooms)
London League, Division 2, Board 1
Monday, 8 January, 2007
Philidor Defence
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 (This is probably now the main line of the Philidor) 6.Be2 (The classical approach - the most serious test of Black's set up is thought to be 6.Bf4 followed by Qd2 and 0-0-0, but there is nothing wrong with this) 6...0-0 7.0-0 Re8 (Black sets about the task of attacking White's e4 spearhead) 8.f4 Bf8 (Here 8...c5 may be better, accepting a hole on d5 in return for active pieces) 9.Bf3 Nbd7 (Again, 9...c5 and 10...Nc6 is probably the way to go) 10.Re1 Nc5 11.b4!? (I had barely considered this but the more I looked at it the more I began to worry that I was simply going to get pushed back after e.g. 11...Ne6 12.Nb3!? when Black's pieces are tripping over themselves somewhat. ) 11...Na6!? 12.b5 (I had expected 12.a3 or 12.Rb1, when I was intending to mess things up a bit with 12...c5!?) 12...Nc5 13.Rb1?! (Now this move seems rather pointless) 13...a6 14.a4 axb5 15.axb5 Na4!? (Trying to exploit the slightly over-extended feel to White's position by bringing lateral pressure to bear on his centre) 16.Nxa4 Rxa4 17.c3 Rc4!? (I had quite simply missed that White could play 17.c3 and felt that if the rook retreated White would just have a nice space advantage for nothing. This looked logical, continuing to apply pressure along the fifth rank, and, in the absence of a clear refutation, seems to allow me to realise Black's main aim in this sort of position - to play ...d6-d5) 18.Bd2?! (This looks a little bit passive. White is drifting somewhat at this stage and it is no surprise that the following move gives Black good play) 18...d5! 19.e5 Ne4 (Forced, but also rather effective) 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Qe2 (The immediate tactical justification of Black's play is that 21.Rxe4 can be met by 21...Bf5!) 21...Qd5 22.Rbd1 f5?! (Black is probably objectively better off playing 22...Bc5 when a lot of exchanges in the middle of the board will lead to a likely draw. Although objectively Black is not really much better at this point, I felt I had played better than my opponent and was reluctant to settle for half a point. Having said that, if I had realised the strength of my opponent's 24th move, I doubt I would have been so churlish!) 23.exf6 gxf6 24.f5! (I had badly underestimated this move, but I think I am still OK) 24...Bc5 25.Qg4† (Perhaps White should simply play 25.Be3!?) 25...Kh8 26.Bh6 Rg8 27.Qxe4 Qxe4 28.Rxe4 (Although Black's king is not completely out of the woods - there remain some annoying back-rank tricks - I felt much more comfortable now the queens were off the board) 28...Bxf5 (Looks natural, but there is something to be said for 28...Rxc3, too) 29.Rf4?! (This looked good at the time, but is probably a mistake - 29.Re3! is better) 29...Bg4? (29...Bh3 is stronger) 30.Rc1 Rg6 31.Kf1? (Losing) 31...Bxd4 32.Rxd4 Rxd4 33.cxd4 Rxh6 34.h3? (Making Black's task easier. After 34.Rxc7! Black's task is not trivial) 34...Be6? (Quite what I thought was wrong with 34...Bd7! 35.Rxc7 Bxb5†, I do not know!) 35.Rxc7 Bd5 36.Kf2 Rg6 37.g4 Rg7 38.Rc8† Rg8 and with the time control (move 36) now passed, White resigned.
0-1
Friday, April 28, 2006
Nxf7!
A first for me last night - a successful Nxf7 sac in OTB play. My opponent had played a lot of fairly half-hearted moves in the opening and I felt the need to punish him! Also, I was in no mood for a long game so after a long think, I decided that, one way or the other, I just had to go for it. In the cold light of day, I'm not sure why I even hesitated - it looks as if White is always getting more than enough for the piece. As it was, my opponent went the wrong way with his king and got caught in a mating net. The only way out was to sacrifice his queen but he never came close to having enough for it and I was able to finish him off quite cleanly.
[Event "Mushrooms-Streatham, Bd 2"]
[Site "London League"]
[Date "2006.04.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Stockwell,M"]
[Black "Churm,R"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 e6 3. g3 dxc4 4. Bg2 Bd6 {Committing the bishop too early. 4...Nf6 is better and Black can even try to hang onto the pawn with ...Qd5 in some lines, which looks dodgy but is not so easy to exploit} 5. Na3 {Exploiting Black's inaccurate move order. If now 5...Bxa3, Black will be a tempo down on comparable lines. White can choose between 6.bxa3 with pressure to come along the b-file and the a1-h8 diagonal, or 6.Qa4+ and 7.Qxa3, keeping the pawns intact. In either case, it is difficulty to see black holding on to his extra pawn for very long.} 5... Bd7 6. Nxc4 {6.Nd4 was also worth a thought} 6... Bc6 7. O-O Nf6 8. d3 b6 {White was threatening various ideas with Na5} 9. e4 Be7 {The most sensible way to meet White's threat of 10.e5} 10. Nce5 Bb7 11. Nxf7 {Black's opening play has been rather self-indulgent and I felt the need to punish him, not least for taking three moves to get his bishop to b7. This is a standard sacrificial idea but I needed to think about it before playing 9.e4 as quiet play here could leave my pieces and pawns looking a little clumsy} 11... Kxf7 12. Ng5+ Kg6 {A bad decision. Black had to take his chances in the centre with 12...Ke8, although after 13.Nxe6 and 14.Nxg7+, White gets three pawns for the piece and an ongoing attack.} 13. Nxe6 {There was also something to be said for 13.f4!?} 13... Qg8 {This looks a bit strange but it is hard to suggest anything better. If the queen goes to d7 or c8 she will be exposed to attack on the h3-c8 diagonal; on d6 she would be hit by e4-e5; and if she goes to e8 then Nxc7 will always come with gain of tempo} 14. Bh3 {This looked like the logical continuation of the attack but there is nothing wrong with 14.Nxc7, when White will end up with a rook and three pawns for two minor pieces, not to mention the discomfort of Black's king and the central pawn phalanx} 14... Nc6 {Developing, and also defending the bishop on e7, so that White can't simply win his piece back with 15.Nf4+ Kh6 16.Nd5+ g5 17.Nxe7. I had been expecting 14...Bd6 when one option for White is 15.Ng5 Bc8 16.Bf5+ Bxf5 17.exf5+ Kxf5 18.Qf3+ followed by 19.Qxa8} 15. Nf4+ Kh6 {Obviously, 15...Kf7 is met by 16.Be6+ winning the Black queen} 16. Bf5 {Cutting off the Black king's flight square and threatening mate in one!} 16... g5 {Black thought for a while over this but it looks more-or-less forced to me. The threat was 17.Ng6# and if, say, 16...Ne8 in order to interpose on g5, then 17.Qh5# follows.} 17. Ne6 Nxe4 {White was threatening simply 18.Bxg5+ and if Black defends with a 'normal' move such as 17...Ne8, White piles on the pressure with 18.h4 when Black is defenceless} 18. Qg4 {Probably objectively best but the simple 18.dxe4 would also win without a trace of Black counterplay} 18... Qxe6 {Not a bad last-ditch attempt. White was threatening mate with Qh4 or Qh3, and after 18...Qf7 (to interpose on h5) 19.Bxe4 Black's position is hopeless.} 19. Bxe6 Nc5 {19...Ne5 looked like a better try but White has everything covered after 20.Qh3+ Kg7 21.Qf5} 20. d4 Nxd4 21. Qxd4 Nxe6 22. Qd7 {Black resigned} 1-0
[Event "Mushrooms-Streatham, Bd 2"]
[Site "London League"]
[Date "2006.04.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Stockwell,M"]
[Black "Churm,R"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 e6 3. g3 dxc4 4. Bg2 Bd6 {Committing the bishop too early. 4...Nf6 is better and Black can even try to hang onto the pawn with ...Qd5 in some lines, which looks dodgy but is not so easy to exploit} 5. Na3 {Exploiting Black's inaccurate move order. If now 5...Bxa3, Black will be a tempo down on comparable lines. White can choose between 6.bxa3 with pressure to come along the b-file and the a1-h8 diagonal, or 6.Qa4+ and 7.Qxa3, keeping the pawns intact. In either case, it is difficulty to see black holding on to his extra pawn for very long.} 5... Bd7 6. Nxc4 {6.Nd4 was also worth a thought} 6... Bc6 7. O-O Nf6 8. d3 b6 {White was threatening various ideas with Na5} 9. e4 Be7 {The most sensible way to meet White's threat of 10.e5} 10. Nce5 Bb7 11. Nxf7 {Black's opening play has been rather self-indulgent and I felt the need to punish him, not least for taking three moves to get his bishop to b7. This is a standard sacrificial idea but I needed to think about it before playing 9.e4 as quiet play here could leave my pieces and pawns looking a little clumsy} 11... Kxf7 12. Ng5+ Kg6 {A bad decision. Black had to take his chances in the centre with 12...Ke8, although after 13.Nxe6 and 14.Nxg7+, White gets three pawns for the piece and an ongoing attack.} 13. Nxe6 {There was also something to be said for 13.f4!?} 13... Qg8 {This looks a bit strange but it is hard to suggest anything better. If the queen goes to d7 or c8 she will be exposed to attack on the h3-c8 diagonal; on d6 she would be hit by e4-e5; and if she goes to e8 then Nxc7 will always come with gain of tempo} 14. Bh3 {This looked like the logical continuation of the attack but there is nothing wrong with 14.Nxc7, when White will end up with a rook and three pawns for two minor pieces, not to mention the discomfort of Black's king and the central pawn phalanx} 14... Nc6 {Developing, and also defending the bishop on e7, so that White can't simply win his piece back with 15.Nf4+ Kh6 16.Nd5+ g5 17.Nxe7. I had been expecting 14...Bd6 when one option for White is 15.Ng5 Bc8 16.Bf5+ Bxf5 17.exf5+ Kxf5 18.Qf3+ followed by 19.Qxa8} 15. Nf4+ Kh6 {Obviously, 15...Kf7 is met by 16.Be6+ winning the Black queen} 16. Bf5 {Cutting off the Black king's flight square and threatening mate in one!} 16... g5 {Black thought for a while over this but it looks more-or-less forced to me. The threat was 17.Ng6# and if, say, 16...Ne8 in order to interpose on g5, then 17.Qh5# follows.} 17. Ne6 Nxe4 {White was threatening simply 18.Bxg5+ and if Black defends with a 'normal' move such as 17...Ne8, White piles on the pressure with 18.h4 when Black is defenceless} 18. Qg4 {Probably objectively best but the simple 18.dxe4 would also win without a trace of Black counterplay} 18... Qxe6 {Not a bad last-ditch attempt. White was threatening mate with Qh4 or Qh3, and after 18...Qf7 (to interpose on h5) 19.Bxe4 Black's position is hopeless.} 19. Bxe6 Nc5 {19...Ne5 looked like a better try but White has everything covered after 20.Qh3+ Kg7 21.Qf5} 20. d4 Nxd4 21. Qxd4 Nxe6 22. Qd7 {Black resigned} 1-0
Thursday, April 20, 2006
My best win yet ...
... from the London League, against a player rated 220-odd BCF (are we still allowed to say that, or should it be ECF?) and nigh-on 2400 ELO.
I was substantially worse for much of the game - a consequence of having no idea how to play the Black side of the Exchange QGD - but fortunately my opponent rather lost control of the position in time trouble. 25.exd4?? was a real howler - he said afterwards that he had missed that I could simply recapture! - and although he kicked (in particular, I had not seen he could play 26.Rb8!), there was no way back.
Here it is in pgn format. I do intend to add some annotations at some stage, but I'm conscious I've said that before:
[Event "London League"]
[Site "Division 1"]
[Date "2006.04.10"]
[Round "Athenaeum-Mushrooms, Board 2"]
[White "J W van de Griendt"]
[Black "M B Stockwell"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Qc2 Be7 8.e3 O-O 9.Bd3 Re8 10.O-O Nf8 11.Rab1 Be6 12.b4 Rc8 13.a4 Nh5 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Rfc1 g6 16.Qd2 Ng7 17.b5 Bf5 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.a5 Rc7 20.Rb3 Nfe6 21.Bf1 Rd8 22.Na4 Be4 23.Ne5 c5 24.dxc5 d4 25.exd4 Nxd4 26.Rb8 Rxb8 27.Qxd4 Bc6 28.Nxc6 Rxc6 29.Qf4 Rbc8 30.Bb5 Ne6 31.Qe3 R6c7 32.c6 Qb4 33.Qd3 Rd8 34.Qf1 Qxa5 35.Nc3 Kg7 36.Qe2 Qa3 37.Qe1 Qc5 38.Ba4 Nf4 39.Rc2 Re7 40.Qa1 Qe5 41.h4 Rd3 42.Kf1 Nd5 43.Re2 Qxc3 0-1
I was substantially worse for much of the game - a consequence of having no idea how to play the Black side of the Exchange QGD - but fortunately my opponent rather lost control of the position in time trouble. 25.exd4?? was a real howler - he said afterwards that he had missed that I could simply recapture! - and although he kicked (in particular, I had not seen he could play 26.Rb8!), there was no way back.
Here it is in pgn format. I do intend to add some annotations at some stage, but I'm conscious I've said that before:
[Event "London League"]
[Site "Division 1"]
[Date "2006.04.10"]
[Round "Athenaeum-Mushrooms, Board 2"]
[White "J W van de Griendt"]
[Black "M B Stockwell"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Qc2 Be7 8.e3 O-O 9.Bd3 Re8 10.O-O Nf8 11.Rab1 Be6 12.b4 Rc8 13.a4 Nh5 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Rfc1 g6 16.Qd2 Ng7 17.b5 Bf5 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.a5 Rc7 20.Rb3 Nfe6 21.Bf1 Rd8 22.Na4 Be4 23.Ne5 c5 24.dxc5 d4 25.exd4 Nxd4 26.Rb8 Rxb8 27.Qxd4 Bc6 28.Nxc6 Rxc6 29.Qf4 Rbc8 30.Bb5 Ne6 31.Qe3 R6c7 32.c6 Qb4 33.Qd3 Rd8 34.Qf1 Qxa5 35.Nc3 Kg7 36.Qe2 Qa3 37.Qe1 Qc5 38.Ba4 Nf4 39.Rc2 Re7 40.Qa1 Qe5 41.h4 Rd3 42.Kf1 Nd5 43.Re2 Qxc3 0-1
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Humdinger
A humdinger from the London League on Monday. Catapulted up the order to Board 1 on the back of my defeat-free season to date, I found myself again with Black and against a higher-rated opponent in the shape of FM Steve Berry.
The bare game score doesn’t do it justice, but I’m in the process of putting some more detailed notes together for the club website and I’ll be sure to post them here when they’re ready.
Black’s fifth is an unusual method of play against the Exchange Lopez. If White does not know what he is doing, Black equalises comfortably. However, if White is well-versed in the theory, then he can force Black into a somewhat speculative pawn sacrifice (although it is not anything like as bad as some of my club mates seemed to think at the time). Unfortunately for me, my strong opponent trod the fairly narrow path of the theoretical main line (8.Nf3!? Qxe4 9.Qa5! is his only other serious try for advantage) and in fact it was my 11…b6!? which is the first real deviation from that.
The main line goes 11…h6 (note that 11…Qxa1?!, while certainly very interesting, is generally thought to give White a fairly clear advantage after 12.Nc3 followed by Bb2, picking up the queen. Black has two rooks but White also has an extra pawn and good activity, while Black seems to lack counterplay) 12.Qe3 f4 13.Qxd4 cxd4 14.Nxf4 Bxe5 15.d3 when White is a safe pawn up. Black’s bishop pair provides some compensation but it is probably not enough and the main question is whether White can co-ordinate his forces to make the extra material count.
11…b6 is not completely unknown, though, and the ‘queen lift’ to g4 is also a familiar idea. White reacts in much the same way as theory suggests he should to 10…Qg4 (Black’s main alternative to 10…c5). Here, though, Black is able to co-ordinate his forces quickly and generate some serious pressure. 14…h6! is a key move, preventing a knight setting up shop on f4 as after the obligatory 15.gxh6 Rxh6, a future Nf4 can always met by …g5. Obviously, opening up the h-file and mobilising the kingside pawns is also fairly useful!
For White’s part, his pieces are a little clumsily placed and he could find nothing better than to bring his knights into a holding formation to try to hold back Black’s counterplay. However, after 18…Be4 he rejected the critical 19.Nf2 Bc6 20.d3 – and after several days of looking at this position I’m still not sure whether he was right to!
Black gets a lot of play – with h2 and e5 both major targets – and there are some lovely variations which, as I’ve said, I’ll post when I’ve got a more complete picture. In any case, by this stage I don’t think Black should lose and I’m led to the conclusion that Black is fine in this line, at least after 13.f4 – it may be that White needs to look at the alternatives there.
After the game continuation 19.Rae1 Black is at least equal and I had a few opportunities to try to play on towards the end. Both sides, however, were short of time towards the end (as you’ll understand when I get round to posting the sort of variations we were both wrestling with!) and an honourable draw seemed a fitting outcome to a hard-fought game.
Berry, S (King's Head) – Stockwell, M (Mushrooms)
London League, Div. 1, Bd. 1
27 February 2006
Spanish Exchange [C68]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0–0 Ne7!? 6.Nxe5 Qd4 7.Qh5! g6 8.Qg5 Bg7 9.Nd3 f5 10.e5 c5!? 11.b3! b6!? 12.Bb2 Qg4 13.f4 Qxg5 14.fxg5 h6! 15.gxh6 Rxh6 16.Na3 Bb7 17.Nc4 0–0–0 18.Ne3 Be4 19.Rae1 Bxd3 20.cxd3 Nc6 21.Bc3 Re8 22.g4 Bxe5 23.Bxe5 Nxe5 24.gxf5 Nxd3 25.Re2 gxf5 26.Rxf5 Nc1 27.Rg2 Nxa2 28.Rf7 Rd6 29.Rgg7 Rxd2 30.Rxc7+ Kb8 31.Rb7+ Kc8 32.Ra7 Kb8 draw agreed ½–½
The bare game score doesn’t do it justice, but I’m in the process of putting some more detailed notes together for the club website and I’ll be sure to post them here when they’re ready.
Black’s fifth is an unusual method of play against the Exchange Lopez. If White does not know what he is doing, Black equalises comfortably. However, if White is well-versed in the theory, then he can force Black into a somewhat speculative pawn sacrifice (although it is not anything like as bad as some of my club mates seemed to think at the time). Unfortunately for me, my strong opponent trod the fairly narrow path of the theoretical main line (8.Nf3!? Qxe4 9.Qa5! is his only other serious try for advantage) and in fact it was my 11…b6!? which is the first real deviation from that.
The main line goes 11…h6 (note that 11…Qxa1?!, while certainly very interesting, is generally thought to give White a fairly clear advantage after 12.Nc3 followed by Bb2, picking up the queen. Black has two rooks but White also has an extra pawn and good activity, while Black seems to lack counterplay) 12.Qe3 f4 13.Qxd4 cxd4 14.Nxf4 Bxe5 15.d3 when White is a safe pawn up. Black’s bishop pair provides some compensation but it is probably not enough and the main question is whether White can co-ordinate his forces to make the extra material count.
11…b6 is not completely unknown, though, and the ‘queen lift’ to g4 is also a familiar idea. White reacts in much the same way as theory suggests he should to 10…Qg4 (Black’s main alternative to 10…c5). Here, though, Black is able to co-ordinate his forces quickly and generate some serious pressure. 14…h6! is a key move, preventing a knight setting up shop on f4 as after the obligatory 15.gxh6 Rxh6, a future Nf4 can always met by …g5. Obviously, opening up the h-file and mobilising the kingside pawns is also fairly useful!
For White’s part, his pieces are a little clumsily placed and he could find nothing better than to bring his knights into a holding formation to try to hold back Black’s counterplay. However, after 18…Be4 he rejected the critical 19.Nf2 Bc6 20.d3 – and after several days of looking at this position I’m still not sure whether he was right to!
Black gets a lot of play – with h2 and e5 both major targets – and there are some lovely variations which, as I’ve said, I’ll post when I’ve got a more complete picture. In any case, by this stage I don’t think Black should lose and I’m led to the conclusion that Black is fine in this line, at least after 13.f4 – it may be that White needs to look at the alternatives there.
After the game continuation 19.Rae1 Black is at least equal and I had a few opportunities to try to play on towards the end. Both sides, however, were short of time towards the end (as you’ll understand when I get round to posting the sort of variations we were both wrestling with!) and an honourable draw seemed a fitting outcome to a hard-fought game.
Berry, S (King's Head) – Stockwell, M (Mushrooms)
London League, Div. 1, Bd. 1
27 February 2006
Spanish Exchange [C68]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0–0 Ne7!? 6.Nxe5 Qd4 7.Qh5! g6 8.Qg5 Bg7 9.Nd3 f5 10.e5 c5!? 11.b3! b6!? 12.Bb2 Qg4 13.f4 Qxg5 14.fxg5 h6! 15.gxh6 Rxh6 16.Na3 Bb7 17.Nc4 0–0–0 18.Ne3 Be4 19.Rae1 Bxd3 20.cxd3 Nc6 21.Bc3 Re8 22.g4 Bxe5 23.Bxe5 Nxe5 24.gxf5 Nxd3 25.Re2 gxf5 26.Rxf5 Nc1 27.Rg2 Nxa2 28.Rf7 Rd6 29.Rgg7 Rxd2 30.Rxc7+ Kb8 31.Rb7+ Kc8 32.Ra7 Kb8 draw agreed ½–½
Thursday, February 16, 2006
3 games ...
... and should have been 3 wins, but I made a bad mistake (21.Bd6?) in the first one and had to fight hard to get back into the game.
I had thought I could answer 21...Re3! with 22.Qxf5, missing that after 22...Nxf3† 23.exf3 Rxe1† 24.Rxe1 Rxe1† 25.Kf2, Black can simply play 25...Re8 when White does not have enough. I haven't got round to looking closely at the next few moves but I suspect Black could follow up more strongly than he did, with a breakthrough sacrifice on e2 looking a distinct possibility. The immediate 25...f4 (instead of 25...Qxc4) also looks strong. When he did get round to playing 27...f4, it looks like a mistake, with a back rank tactic (29...Qxe1?? 30.Qf7† Kh8 31.Qf8† and mates) enabling me to snaffle the pawn. He gets my a-pawn in return, but at the price of decentralising his queen and allowing me to activate my pieces.
By the end I was probably the one who should be trying to avoid the draw, but I was short of time by this stage and my king felt decidedly uncomfortable wandering around on the fourth rank with all the major pieces still on.
□ Mark Stockwell (Conquistadors)
■ Chris Rawlinson (Oxford 2)
4NCL Div 4, Rd 5, Bd 3
11 February 2006
Réti / Dutch
1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 f5 5.0-0 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Qc2 0-0 8.a3 Bxc3 9.Qxc3 d6 10.b4 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Qe7 12.Rfe1 Rae8 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Bxb7 c6 15.d4 Qxb7 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Rad1 Ne4 18.Qd3 Rf7 19.f3 Ng5 20.Bxe5 Rfe7 21.Bd6? Re3 22.Qd2 Qf7 23.Be5 Nh3† 24.Kg2 R8xe5 25.Kxh3 Qxc4 26.Qd8† Re8 27.Qd7 f4 28.Rd4 Qc3 29.Rxf4 R3e7 30.Qd1 Qxa3 31.Qd4 h6 32.e4 Re5 33.Ra1 Rh5† 34.Kg4 Rg5† 35.Kh3 Rh5† draw agreed
½-½
The second game was a rather one-sided affair. My opponent handled the opening rather poorly and rather than submit himself to a bad IQP position, he opted for a highly speculative line, involving the sacrifice of a whole knight. There is some temporary disruption to Black's co-ordination and my king briefly felt a shade uncomfortable but, in the end, it was not difficult to fend off any immediate threats and unravel, after which it was White's king which felt the heat. I can't remember the last time I got to give mate over the board. I can recommend it!
□ Simon Greely (Grendel’s Mother)
■ Mark Stockwell (Conquistadors)
4NCL Div 4, Rd 6, Bd 3
12 February 2006
Queen’s Gambit Declined
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 dxc4 6.Qa4† Nbd7 7.e3 a6 8.Qxc4 c5 9.Nbd2 b5 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.Be2 Rc8 12.Qd1 cxd4 13.Nxd4?! Bxg2 14.Rg1 Bb7 15.Nxe6? fxe6 16.Bh5† Ke7 17.Bf3 Qc7 18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Rc1 Rxc1 20.Qxc1 g5 21.Bg3 Bg7 22.Qc2 Kf7 23.h4 Rc8 24.Qb1 Qc6 25.Kd1 Nc5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Be5 Nce4 28.Bxf6 Nxf6 29.f4 g4 30.e4 Rd8 31.Ke2 Qd6 32.Qc2 Qxf4 33.Rf1 Qe5 34.Qc6 Bh6 35.Nb3 Qxb2† 36.Ke1 Qb1† 37.Ke2 Qd3† 38.Ke1 Qe3#
0-1
Finally, my game from the London League last night was a shade disappointing. Wood Green are the leading team in the league and it is not uncommon for them to field a grandmaster as low as board 8. My opponents in the last two matches against Wood Green have been IM Richard Pert (BCF 222) and GM Neil McDonald (BCF 215). On both occasions I failed to make much of a fight of it, despite having White. Nonetheless, it is always good to pit yourself against strong opposition so it was with a sense of anticipation as well as trepidation that I headed off after work to the Golden Lane Community Centre.
This time, I was due to face Australian IM John Paul Wallace, whose latest FIDE rating is 2392. Well, we have beaten them at rugby and cricket lately, so I had to be in with a chance, especially if I continually interrupted his thinking with jibes about when he was next working the bar at the Shepherd's Bush Walkabout.
Unfortunately, J P was unable to make it, and so instead Wood Green's usually non-playing captain Brian Smith (BCF 101) kindly stepped into the breach to ensure my journey to the depths of the Barbican wasn't wasted. He played quite a good opening, and I was concerned at one point that I might have overreached in my attempt to take the initiative (11..exd4 is probably somewhat premature). However, he allowed me to swap queens and go into an ending where his bishop pair was not quite enough compensation for my extra protected passed pawn on the queenside. As so often when playing slightly weaker players, it is in the ending where the difference in strength shows most and it proved relatively straightforward to push my pawns and keep the bishops' activity in check.
Nonetheless, it was quite a good workout, and it was good of Brian to step in. But then I have to say that, as he is also the League Secretary ...
□ Brian Smith (Wood Green)
■ Mark Stockwell (Mushrooms)
London League, Bd 4
15 February 2006
Semi-Slav, Meran
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.e4 e5 11.Bg5 exd4 12.Nxd4 Ne5 13.Bc2 b4 14.Nce2 c5 15.Nf5 Bxf5 16.exf5 Nc4 17.Ng3 Bxg3 18.hxg3 Qxd1 19.Raxd1 Nxb2 20.Rb1 Nc4 21.Bb3 Nd6 22.Rbd1 Rfd8 23.Bf4 Nxf5 24.Rxd8† Rxd8 25.Rd1 Rxd1† 26.Bxd1 Nd5 27.Bb8 Nc3 28.Bg4 g6 29.Bxa7 c4 30.Kf1 b3 White resigned
0-1
I had thought I could answer 21...Re3! with 22.Qxf5, missing that after 22...Nxf3† 23.exf3 Rxe1† 24.Rxe1 Rxe1† 25.Kf2, Black can simply play 25...Re8 when White does not have enough. I haven't got round to looking closely at the next few moves but I suspect Black could follow up more strongly than he did, with a breakthrough sacrifice on e2 looking a distinct possibility. The immediate 25...f4 (instead of 25...Qxc4) also looks strong. When he did get round to playing 27...f4, it looks like a mistake, with a back rank tactic (29...Qxe1?? 30.Qf7† Kh8 31.Qf8† and mates) enabling me to snaffle the pawn. He gets my a-pawn in return, but at the price of decentralising his queen and allowing me to activate my pieces.
By the end I was probably the one who should be trying to avoid the draw, but I was short of time by this stage and my king felt decidedly uncomfortable wandering around on the fourth rank with all the major pieces still on.
□ Mark Stockwell (Conquistadors)
■ Chris Rawlinson (Oxford 2)
4NCL Div 4, Rd 5, Bd 3
11 February 2006
Réti / Dutch
1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 f5 5.0-0 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Qc2 0-0 8.a3 Bxc3 9.Qxc3 d6 10.b4 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Qe7 12.Rfe1 Rae8 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Bxb7 c6 15.d4 Qxb7 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Rad1 Ne4 18.Qd3 Rf7 19.f3 Ng5 20.Bxe5 Rfe7 21.Bd6? Re3 22.Qd2 Qf7 23.Be5 Nh3† 24.Kg2 R8xe5 25.Kxh3 Qxc4 26.Qd8† Re8 27.Qd7 f4 28.Rd4 Qc3 29.Rxf4 R3e7 30.Qd1 Qxa3 31.Qd4 h6 32.e4 Re5 33.Ra1 Rh5† 34.Kg4 Rg5† 35.Kh3 Rh5† draw agreed
½-½
The second game was a rather one-sided affair. My opponent handled the opening rather poorly and rather than submit himself to a bad IQP position, he opted for a highly speculative line, involving the sacrifice of a whole knight. There is some temporary disruption to Black's co-ordination and my king briefly felt a shade uncomfortable but, in the end, it was not difficult to fend off any immediate threats and unravel, after which it was White's king which felt the heat. I can't remember the last time I got to give mate over the board. I can recommend it!
□ Simon Greely (Grendel’s Mother)
■ Mark Stockwell (Conquistadors)
4NCL Div 4, Rd 6, Bd 3
12 February 2006
Queen’s Gambit Declined
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 dxc4 6.Qa4† Nbd7 7.e3 a6 8.Qxc4 c5 9.Nbd2 b5 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.Be2 Rc8 12.Qd1 cxd4 13.Nxd4?! Bxg2 14.Rg1 Bb7 15.Nxe6? fxe6 16.Bh5† Ke7 17.Bf3 Qc7 18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Rc1 Rxc1 20.Qxc1 g5 21.Bg3 Bg7 22.Qc2 Kf7 23.h4 Rc8 24.Qb1 Qc6 25.Kd1 Nc5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Be5 Nce4 28.Bxf6 Nxf6 29.f4 g4 30.e4 Rd8 31.Ke2 Qd6 32.Qc2 Qxf4 33.Rf1 Qe5 34.Qc6 Bh6 35.Nb3 Qxb2† 36.Ke1 Qb1† 37.Ke2 Qd3† 38.Ke1 Qe3#
0-1
Finally, my game from the London League last night was a shade disappointing. Wood Green are the leading team in the league and it is not uncommon for them to field a grandmaster as low as board 8. My opponents in the last two matches against Wood Green have been IM Richard Pert (BCF 222) and GM Neil McDonald (BCF 215). On both occasions I failed to make much of a fight of it, despite having White. Nonetheless, it is always good to pit yourself against strong opposition so it was with a sense of anticipation as well as trepidation that I headed off after work to the Golden Lane Community Centre.
This time, I was due to face Australian IM John Paul Wallace, whose latest FIDE rating is 2392. Well, we have beaten them at rugby and cricket lately, so I had to be in with a chance, especially if I continually interrupted his thinking with jibes about when he was next working the bar at the Shepherd's Bush Walkabout.
Unfortunately, J P was unable to make it, and so instead Wood Green's usually non-playing captain Brian Smith (BCF 101) kindly stepped into the breach to ensure my journey to the depths of the Barbican wasn't wasted. He played quite a good opening, and I was concerned at one point that I might have overreached in my attempt to take the initiative (11..exd4 is probably somewhat premature). However, he allowed me to swap queens and go into an ending where his bishop pair was not quite enough compensation for my extra protected passed pawn on the queenside. As so often when playing slightly weaker players, it is in the ending where the difference in strength shows most and it proved relatively straightforward to push my pawns and keep the bishops' activity in check.
Nonetheless, it was quite a good workout, and it was good of Brian to step in. But then I have to say that, as he is also the League Secretary ...
□ Brian Smith (Wood Green)
■ Mark Stockwell (Mushrooms)
London League, Bd 4
15 February 2006
Semi-Slav, Meran
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.e4 e5 11.Bg5 exd4 12.Nxd4 Ne5 13.Bc2 b4 14.Nce2 c5 15.Nf5 Bxf5 16.exf5 Nc4 17.Ng3 Bxg3 18.hxg3 Qxd1 19.Raxd1 Nxb2 20.Rb1 Nc4 21.Bb3 Nd6 22.Rbd1 Rfd8 23.Bf4 Nxf5 24.Rxd8† Rxd8 25.Rd1 Rxd1† 26.Bxd1 Nd5 27.Bb8 Nc3 28.Bg4 g6 29.Bxa7 c4 30.Kf1 b3 White resigned
0-1
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
New Year, new defence ...
Quite a tame draw to report from the London League.
Just as I have been experimenting with 1.e4 with White, so I have decided to give 1...e5 the occasional whirl with Black. Given all the tricky gambits and sidelines available to White along the way, I was quite pleased to see a mainline Lopez appear on the board so that I could trot out one of my blitz favourites, a sort of combination of the Archangel and Møller Variations.
My opponent went straight down one of the main lines, grabbing the b5 pawn which is implicitly offered. Black should get a certain amount of pressure, but in this game I felt that my compensation was always falling short until my opponent attempted to simplify but in doing so allowed me to win back my pawn with a more-or-less dead level position.
If anything, Black may have some pressure down the b-file in the final position but I was happy to draw with Black against a slightly higher-rated opponent, especially after a slightly dicey opening. The rest of the team was doing sufficiently well that I did not think I was letting the side down although a lot of games went to overtime – so I hope we bring the adjourned positions home!
W: J Hodgson (Ilford)
B: M Stockwell (Mushrooms)
London League, Div. 1, Bd. 4
Monday, 23 January, 2006
Spanish, “New Archangel”
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 Rb8 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.Na3 Bg4 11.axb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 0-0 13.Ra3 Qe8 14.Ba4 Bd7 15.Re1 Nd8 16.c4 exd4 17.Nbxd4 Bxa4 18.Qxa4 Qxa4 19.Rxa4 Re8 20.Ra3 draw agreed ½-½
Just as I have been experimenting with 1.e4 with White, so I have decided to give 1...e5 the occasional whirl with Black. Given all the tricky gambits and sidelines available to White along the way, I was quite pleased to see a mainline Lopez appear on the board so that I could trot out one of my blitz favourites, a sort of combination of the Archangel and Møller Variations.
My opponent went straight down one of the main lines, grabbing the b5 pawn which is implicitly offered. Black should get a certain amount of pressure, but in this game I felt that my compensation was always falling short until my opponent attempted to simplify but in doing so allowed me to win back my pawn with a more-or-less dead level position.
If anything, Black may have some pressure down the b-file in the final position but I was happy to draw with Black against a slightly higher-rated opponent, especially after a slightly dicey opening. The rest of the team was doing sufficiently well that I did not think I was letting the side down although a lot of games went to overtime – so I hope we bring the adjourned positions home!
W: J Hodgson (Ilford)
B: M Stockwell (Mushrooms)
London League, Div. 1, Bd. 4
Monday, 23 January, 2006
Spanish, “New Archangel”
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 Rb8 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.Na3 Bg4 11.axb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 0-0 13.Ra3 Qe8 14.Ba4 Bd7 15.Re1 Nd8 16.c4 exd4 17.Nbxd4 Bxa4 18.Qxa4 Qxa4 19.Rxa4 Re8 20.Ra3 draw agreed ½-½
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
4NCL Week 1
The first weekend of Division 4 action is now out of the way. I am happy to report a successful result both for me and for my Conquistadors team - despite losing our Board 5 to a last-minute withdrawal, forcing our usually non-playing captain into action for which he was, through no fault of hs own, not best equipped. Even though we effectively started both matches 1 point down, we managed to scrape through 3½-2½ in both our matches. I contributed a win with White in the first game and a rather tame draw with Black in the second.
I feel slightly guilty for not playing on a bit longer in the second game, but I had used up a lot of mental energy and fighting spirit in my first game. The position really did strike me as being dead level and I would have had to take quite a few risks to try to engineer some imbalance.
The first game was very pleasing, at least in part because my opponent is a young and improving player (his BCF grading went up from 159 to 172 in the course of last year, which is a healthy leap and suggests to me that his current strength is a bit higher than that). He played very energetically and gave me a good scare, so it was very satisfying to come out of it with a full point.
I mishandled the opening quite badly and it soon became clear that my king was going to come under fire. Given that I couldn't see a way to avoid this anyway, I took what I think was an excellent decision, not least in practical terms, to take a 'hot' pawn. This left my queen a bit 'offside' but in doing so I also compromised both my opponent's pawn structure and (more importantly) his king position. I also felt that my queen wasn't as out of play as it looked. Obviously, I couldn't calculate everything, but I sensed somehow that I could at the very least weather the storm, while if my opponent played inaccurately, I would come out on top. And so it proved ...
W: M Stockwell (Conquistadors)
B: L Varnam (Slough Sharks 4)
4NCL (Div. 4), Round 1
Ruy Lopez, Exchange
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (my second game of the season, and the second Lopez ...) 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 f6 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Bd6!? (quite an interesting alternative to the usual 7...c5 8.Nb3 {or 8.Ne2!?} 8...Qxd1 9.Rxd1 etc.) 8.Qh5†! (the remedy given by all the books, although there doesn't seem to be too much wrong with simply 8.Be3 either) 8...g6 9.Qf3 Qe7 (9...Bxh2† 10.Kxh2 Qxd4 is considered a bit risky for Black after 10.Rd1 Qc4 11.Bf4 Qf7 12.Qb3, when White will win his pawn back on c7 with a slight plus) 10.Be3?! (Much better is 10.Bf4! immediately challenging the h2-b8 diagonal) 10...h5! (Immediately taking advantage of the slightly clumsy placing of White's pieces, in particular the shortage of available squares for his queen) 11.Qe2!? (Not 11.h3? Qe5! {11...Bg4 12.hxg4 hxg4 13.Qxg4 Bh2† seems to be good enough only for a draw} when White is struggling. It was probably objectively better to admit the error on the previous move and play 11.Bf4, but I felt it was more combative to offer a pawn sacrifice in order to achieve a more harmonious piece placement) 11...Bd7 (Probably wisely, Black declines the offer. 11...Qxe4 12.Nc3 Qe7 {12...Qe5 13.f4!} 13.Rfe1 {or possibly Rae1} gives White definite compensation) 12.Nd2 (Here rather than c3, where the knight has nowhere to go. From d2, there is the idea of eventually hopping to c4 to exchange the powerful bishop on d6, but in the end this task is left to another piece, while the knight scurries to the aid of his king) 12...0-0-0 13.f3 (I wanted to play 13.Nc4 directly but then 13...Qxe4 looks like a safe pawn grab) 13...f5!? (I was expecting him to complete his development with 13...Nh6 14.Nc4 Nf7 when 15.Nxd6† cxd6 is probably slightly better for White due to the slightly sensitive dark squares around his king. This is much more aggressive) 14.exf5 (Judging that the pressure down the g-file could be dealt with and that in the long run Black's pawn weaknesses would be the more significant factor. In any case, White must not allow ...f4 and ...Nh6-f7-e5 when Black has a strong bind, so this seemed the most logical move) 14...gxf5 15.Rfe1 (Very much the right rook - as we shall see, the other rook is needed on d1, and the knight on d2 is now revising its plans and heading to the f1 square vacated by the rook) 15...Qh4 16.Nf1 Ne7 (Preparing to swing a rook over to g8) 17.Bf2 Qg5 18.Ne6 Bxe6 19.Qxe6† Kb8 20.Qe3!? (Here it was becoming obvious that the attack down the g-file was going to hit me hard, so I thought I might as well take a pawn for my troubles!) 20...f4 (Obviously the exchange of queens was not a serious option) 21.Qa7† Kc8 22.Qa8† Kd7 23.Qxb7 Rdg8 (Looks logical but it turns out, surprisingly, that the other rook isn't actually achieving that much on h8, while it may be useful for Black to retain the option of ...Rb8 and ...Rxb2, so it may have been better to play 23...Rhg8) 24.g3 Nf5? (It wasn't at all obvious at the time, but this is definitely wrong. Although it may look sensible to gang up on g3, Black ends up playing ...h4 soon and provoking White to play g4. If Black had played 24...fxg3 25.hxg3 h4 26.g4, the move 26...Nf5 would not then look like the most sensible way to spend a tempo. Moreover, after White's next move, there are variations where the knight is better employed on d5, shielding the bishop and king from the powerful X-ray of the White rook. For example, 26...Qf4! 27.Rad1 Nd5! {27...Rxg4+ is also good here} and White is in real trouble.) 25.Rad1!! (The exclamation marks are not for the fact that this move was difficult to find - it seemed more-or-less forced to me - but partly for the fact that I had to see it before playing 20.Qe3, and mostly for the fact that the move has such a strong impact! Not only does it pin the bishop, making the pressure on g3 manageable; the rook also threatens to sacrifice itself on d6, exposing the Black king to a powerful counter-attack. It is no exaggeration to say that the insertion of the moves 24...Nf5 and 25.Rad1 alter the assessment of the position from probably winning for Black to probably winning for White) 25...fxg3 26.hxg3 h4 (26...Nh4 - with the idea of eg. 27.Rd3 Qf5 and 28...Qh3 - can now be met by 27.Rxd6†! Kxd6 28. Rd1† when Black is in serious trouble) 27.g4 Qf4 28.Qb3! (Another star defensive/counter-attacking move, protecting key squares along the third rank and also threatening to come into e6 or f7 to harass the Black king) 28...Rxg4† (In for a penny ... a further advantage of White's apparently risky pawn grab is that Black is now obliged to go for broke; if the attack peters out without serious material gains, White will almost certainly be winning. I had, of course, anticipated this sacrifice, but was reasonably confident by this stage, with my queen's rook activated and my queen back playing a full part in the action, that my resources were adequate. After the game, I felt that 28...Kc8 taking time out to unpin was a better try, but in fact simply 29.Qe6+ Kb7 30.Rd3 keeps Black at bay and leaves White clearly better, eg. 30...Ng3 31.Bd4 Nxf1 32.Rb3+ Ka8 33.Qc4! and wins, or 30...Rxg4+ 31.fxg4 Qxg4+ 32.Kh1 Ng3+ 33.Bxg3 hxg3+ 34.Kg2!) 29.fxg4 Qxg4† 30.Kh1! (I was very pleased with this move, which required a cool head) 30...Rg8 (Reinforcing my earlier comments about this rook - see the note to Black's 23rd move. If the rook's response to the White king moving onto the h-file is immediately to slide over to the g-file, there wasn't much point having it on h8 all that time. However, if black plays the move which suggests itself here, 30...Ng3†, White simply continues 31.Bxg3 hxg3† 32.Kg1! when 32...g2 33.Ng3 is fine for White as the bishop is still pinned. Unfortunately for Black, the move he chooses also fails) 31.Qe6†! Kd8 32.Rxd6†! (Finally!) 32...Nxd6 (Seeing too late that 32...cxd6?? allows 33.Bb6#!) 33.Qxg4 and Black resigned, as he is a piece down and his flag was hanging.
1-0
W: D Cooper (Warwickshire Select 2)
B: M Stockwell (Conquistadors)
4NCL (Div. 4), Round 2
Scandinavian
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Bf5 6.0-0 e6 7.Nd4 Bg6 8.Nb3 Qb6 9.d3 c6 10.Bf4 Nbd7 11.Bf3 Be7 12.Re1 0-0 13.h3 Rfe8 14.Ne4 e5 15.Nxf6† Bxf6 16.Bd2 Qc7 17.Bc3 draw agreed 1/2-1/2
I feel slightly guilty for not playing on a bit longer in the second game, but I had used up a lot of mental energy and fighting spirit in my first game. The position really did strike me as being dead level and I would have had to take quite a few risks to try to engineer some imbalance.
The first game was very pleasing, at least in part because my opponent is a young and improving player (his BCF grading went up from 159 to 172 in the course of last year, which is a healthy leap and suggests to me that his current strength is a bit higher than that). He played very energetically and gave me a good scare, so it was very satisfying to come out of it with a full point.
I mishandled the opening quite badly and it soon became clear that my king was going to come under fire. Given that I couldn't see a way to avoid this anyway, I took what I think was an excellent decision, not least in practical terms, to take a 'hot' pawn. This left my queen a bit 'offside' but in doing so I also compromised both my opponent's pawn structure and (more importantly) his king position. I also felt that my queen wasn't as out of play as it looked. Obviously, I couldn't calculate everything, but I sensed somehow that I could at the very least weather the storm, while if my opponent played inaccurately, I would come out on top. And so it proved ...
W: M Stockwell (Conquistadors)
B: L Varnam (Slough Sharks 4)
4NCL (Div. 4), Round 1
Ruy Lopez, Exchange
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (my second game of the season, and the second Lopez ...) 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 f6 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Bd6!? (quite an interesting alternative to the usual 7...c5 8.Nb3 {or 8.Ne2!?} 8...Qxd1 9.Rxd1 etc.) 8.Qh5†! (the remedy given by all the books, although there doesn't seem to be too much wrong with simply 8.Be3 either) 8...g6 9.Qf3 Qe7 (9...Bxh2† 10.Kxh2 Qxd4 is considered a bit risky for Black after 10.Rd1 Qc4 11.Bf4 Qf7 12.Qb3, when White will win his pawn back on c7 with a slight plus) 10.Be3?! (Much better is 10.Bf4! immediately challenging the h2-b8 diagonal) 10...h5! (Immediately taking advantage of the slightly clumsy placing of White's pieces, in particular the shortage of available squares for his queen) 11.Qe2!? (Not 11.h3? Qe5! {11...Bg4 12.hxg4 hxg4 13.Qxg4 Bh2† seems to be good enough only for a draw} when White is struggling. It was probably objectively better to admit the error on the previous move and play 11.Bf4, but I felt it was more combative to offer a pawn sacrifice in order to achieve a more harmonious piece placement) 11...Bd7 (Probably wisely, Black declines the offer. 11...Qxe4 12.Nc3 Qe7 {12...Qe5 13.f4!} 13.Rfe1 {or possibly Rae1} gives White definite compensation) 12.Nd2 (Here rather than c3, where the knight has nowhere to go. From d2, there is the idea of eventually hopping to c4 to exchange the powerful bishop on d6, but in the end this task is left to another piece, while the knight scurries to the aid of his king) 12...0-0-0 13.f3 (I wanted to play 13.Nc4 directly but then 13...Qxe4 looks like a safe pawn grab) 13...f5!? (I was expecting him to complete his development with 13...Nh6 14.Nc4 Nf7 when 15.Nxd6† cxd6 is probably slightly better for White due to the slightly sensitive dark squares around his king. This is much more aggressive) 14.exf5 (Judging that the pressure down the g-file could be dealt with and that in the long run Black's pawn weaknesses would be the more significant factor. In any case, White must not allow ...f4 and ...Nh6-f7-e5 when Black has a strong bind, so this seemed the most logical move) 14...gxf5 15.Rfe1 (Very much the right rook - as we shall see, the other rook is needed on d1, and the knight on d2 is now revising its plans and heading to the f1 square vacated by the rook) 15...Qh4 16.Nf1 Ne7 (Preparing to swing a rook over to g8) 17.Bf2 Qg5 18.Ne6 Bxe6 19.Qxe6† Kb8 20.Qe3!? (Here it was becoming obvious that the attack down the g-file was going to hit me hard, so I thought I might as well take a pawn for my troubles!) 20...f4 (Obviously the exchange of queens was not a serious option) 21.Qa7† Kc8 22.Qa8† Kd7 23.Qxb7 Rdg8 (Looks logical but it turns out, surprisingly, that the other rook isn't actually achieving that much on h8, while it may be useful for Black to retain the option of ...Rb8 and ...Rxb2, so it may have been better to play 23...Rhg8) 24.g3 Nf5? (It wasn't at all obvious at the time, but this is definitely wrong. Although it may look sensible to gang up on g3, Black ends up playing ...h4 soon and provoking White to play g4. If Black had played 24...fxg3 25.hxg3 h4 26.g4, the move 26...Nf5 would not then look like the most sensible way to spend a tempo. Moreover, after White's next move, there are variations where the knight is better employed on d5, shielding the bishop and king from the powerful X-ray of the White rook. For example, 26...Qf4! 27.Rad1 Nd5! {27...Rxg4+ is also good here} and White is in real trouble.) 25.Rad1!! (The exclamation marks are not for the fact that this move was difficult to find - it seemed more-or-less forced to me - but partly for the fact that I had to see it before playing 20.Qe3, and mostly for the fact that the move has such a strong impact! Not only does it pin the bishop, making the pressure on g3 manageable; the rook also threatens to sacrifice itself on d6, exposing the Black king to a powerful counter-attack. It is no exaggeration to say that the insertion of the moves 24...Nf5 and 25.Rad1 alter the assessment of the position from probably winning for Black to probably winning for White) 25...fxg3 26.hxg3 h4 (26...Nh4 - with the idea of eg. 27.Rd3 Qf5 and 28...Qh3 - can now be met by 27.Rxd6†! Kxd6 28. Rd1† when Black is in serious trouble) 27.g4 Qf4 28.Qb3! (Another star defensive/counter-attacking move, protecting key squares along the third rank and also threatening to come into e6 or f7 to harass the Black king) 28...Rxg4† (In for a penny ... a further advantage of White's apparently risky pawn grab is that Black is now obliged to go for broke; if the attack peters out without serious material gains, White will almost certainly be winning. I had, of course, anticipated this sacrifice, but was reasonably confident by this stage, with my queen's rook activated and my queen back playing a full part in the action, that my resources were adequate. After the game, I felt that 28...Kc8 taking time out to unpin was a better try, but in fact simply 29.Qe6+ Kb7 30.Rd3 keeps Black at bay and leaves White clearly better, eg. 30...Ng3 31.Bd4 Nxf1 32.Rb3+ Ka8 33.Qc4! and wins, or 30...Rxg4+ 31.fxg4 Qxg4+ 32.Kh1 Ng3+ 33.Bxg3 hxg3+ 34.Kg2!) 29.fxg4 Qxg4† 30.Kh1! (I was very pleased with this move, which required a cool head) 30...Rg8 (Reinforcing my earlier comments about this rook - see the note to Black's 23rd move. If the rook's response to the White king moving onto the h-file is immediately to slide over to the g-file, there wasn't much point having it on h8 all that time. However, if black plays the move which suggests itself here, 30...Ng3†, White simply continues 31.Bxg3 hxg3† 32.Kg1! when 32...g2 33.Ng3 is fine for White as the bishop is still pinned. Unfortunately for Black, the move he chooses also fails) 31.Qe6†! Kd8 32.Rxd6†! (Finally!) 32...Nxd6 (Seeing too late that 32...cxd6?? allows 33.Bb6#!) 33.Qxg4 and Black resigned, as he is a piece down and his flag was hanging.
1-0
W: D Cooper (Warwickshire Select 2)
B: M Stockwell (Conquistadors)
4NCL (Div. 4), Round 2
Scandinavian
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Bf5 6.0-0 e6 7.Nd4 Bg6 8.Nb3 Qb6 9.d3 c6 10.Bf4 Nbd7 11.Bf3 Be7 12.Re1 0-0 13.h3 Rfe8 14.Ne4 e5 15.Nxf6† Bxf6 16.Bd2 Qc7 17.Bc3 draw agreed 1/2-1/2
