February Sectional (4), 07.02.2010
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 c5 5.d5 b5
Roy changes to a Benko setup, trying to take advantage of white's move order. It was interesting to talk to Roy after the game about his decision. According to him, he was trying to avoid playing technical positions against me and instead tried to steer the game into complications at every opportunity. His reasoning for this was because after looking at some of my games he was disturbed by how I squeezed people by using a space advantage and my more active pieces. I found this assessment interesting because I've never thought of myself as a "grinder" before, but at the same time I do enjoy positions where I have space, especially in the center.
6.cxb5
[6.e5]
This aggressive lunge is Rybka's first suggestion, but after letting it ponder for a while it realizes that white is overextended. This is exactly the type of game Roy was trying to provoke, and although I didn't understand his motives while playing, I was cognizant of his intentions and tried to avoid them as much as I could. As we'll see later, this type of thinking prevented me from choosing the most promising continuation in the middlegame.
[6...Ng8 7.f4 d6 this position looks like a nightmare for white]
6...a6 7.Na3!?
When deciding on a setup to adopt, I chose to go with this maneuver because if white is able to get away with it he will achieve the ideal queenside blockade, which is every Benko player's worst fear. The general plan is to play Ne2-c3, Nc4, a4, Be2, 0-0 and then gradually expand in the center with f4. Of course, black should not allow this and Roy does his best to open up the center before white is fully developed.
7...0-0 8.Ne2 e6 9.Nc3 exd5 10.Nxd5 axb5
11.Nxb5[11.Bxb5? Rxa3!]
11...Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Ra5 13.Bd2 Ra4 14.Bc3 Bxc3+ 15.Nxc3 Qa5
This is the critical opening position, and although I realized that I again failed to come up with the best plan because I didn't evaluate the position properly. Here white should challenge black by castling long, but even though I considered this I rejected it because I was still trying to play solidly. As I said before, I realized my opponent was trying to complicate matters and my play was directed against that, but there comes a time when you have to say "prove it" and play the critcal continuation despite how messy it may be.
16.Bb5?
[16.0-0-0 Rb4 17.a3 Rb6 18.Qd2 the move I missed in my calculations, and the one that gives white a clear advantage 18...Bb7 19.Nd5 Qxd2+ 20.Rxd2 and white is just up an outside passed pawn, with a better pawn structure to boot.]
16...Rb4 17.0-0 Rxb5
[17...Rxb2?! this sequence was the tactical justification for Bb5 18.Rac1 Rxb5?? 19.Nxb5 Qxb5 20.Rb1]
18.Nxb5 Qxb5 19.a4 Qb4 20.Rfc1 Na6 21.b3 Qb6 22.a5 Qb8 23.Rd1 Qf4 24.Qd2 Qe5 25.Qd5 Qf4 26.Qd2 Qe5
I agreed to a repetition of moves because it wasn't clear to me how white should make progress. At the time I felt that in order to win white would need to gain some dark squared control in the center with moves like g3, f4, etc, but that would make my light squares weak and subsequently make black's bishop a monster. I felt it was asking too much of my position to push the envelope like that, and so Roy and I shook hands.
½-½
0 comments:
Post a Comment