Feb Sectional - Rd 5

Before looking at this game, take a moment to study the following positions to see what they have in common:

The answer to this question will be revealed later.

Kalisvaart,Peter (2146) - Gluckie,Jamin (2073) [A10]

February Sectional (5), 07.02.2010

1.c4 f5

My opponent is typically a 1.d4 player, so I reasoned that he played this move to either surprise me, or because he found something in my repertoire that he was hoping to exploit. Prior to this game I decided to try the Classical Dutch, and since it is a universal system against anything but 1.e4, Peter's opening didn't phase me at all.

The funny thing is that my opponent has a habit of talking to himself during the game and he began doing this after I played 1...f5. No one at the ECC seems to understand why he does this, but in my opinion, and this is based on my experiences with Peter in our first encounter on the previous day, my opponent talks to himself when he reaches a critical position, or where he feels that calculation is necessary. With that in mind, Peter must have felt that white's position is critical already!

2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6

I would have liked to play e5 in one shot, but white then has the ability to play 4.d4!, which would lead to a different type of position than what I was aiming for.

4.Nc3 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.d3

This is a rather passive move. White should definitely play 7.d4 here if he wants anything from the opening. After his blazing start on Saturday with 2.5/3, it seemed like Peter was trying to play very solidly to draw his games and win the tournament. This strategy did not pay off for him though - he lost all of his games on Sunday.

7...e5 8.b4

Rybka agrees with this move, but I thought it was premature because white can't maintain a pawn on b4. I would have played 8.Rb1.

8...a5 9.b5

Although the pawn on b5 gives white some extra queenside space and makes his g2 bishop stronger, it also makes white's desired c5 break rather difficult to achieve.

9...Qe8

The plan is to play some combination of f4, Qh5, Bh3 and attack the white king.

10.a4 f4 11.Nd5

I was happy to see this move as it makes his g2 bishop bad on the long diagonal, and therefore releases some queenside pressure.

[11.gxf4 Qh5 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.Ba3]

11...Nxd5 12.cxd5 Qh5 13.Qc2 Bd8 14.gxf4

[14.b6 c5! 15.dxc6 Nxc6 16.Ba3 Rf6]

14...Bh3

[14...exf4 This is best according to Rybka, and now that I have had some time to analyze this position, I have to agree. I am not that familiar with these types of positions (this was the first time I played a Dutch), but at the time of the game I thought that the open f-file is what black needed to continue the attack. Now I see that the threat of an eventual f3 is even more dangerous, and therefore the pawn on f4 is an asset.]

15.Bxh3 Qxh3

We now return to the original problem: what is the common link between the two positions at the start of this thread? The answer: in both cases white blundered with Kh1?? Peter told me afterwards that he thought his rooks were connected, and he planned to continue with Rg1, when combined with his dark squared bishop on b2, he hoped to generate pressure on g7.

The other diagram is from a game I played against John McIntrye a few years ago. I'm not sure what his reasoning was for playing Kh1, but due to the fact that he effectively mated himself with that move, he gets full marks for aesthetics.

16.Kh1

[16.Ng5 This is what I was expecting my opponent to play, when I was going to continue 16...Bxg5 17.fxg5 Nd7! 18.Qxc7 Qg4+ 19.Kh1 Qxe2 When I felt that I had good attacking chances due to the weak light squares around the white king.]

0-1