Feb Sectional - Rd 6

Gluckie,Jamin (2073) - Wang,Richard (2154) [D30]

February Sectional (6), 07.02.2010

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2 Bd6 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.0-0 Qe7

Richard offered a draw here, but I declined because my position is better, and because I really wanted to win this game. Since my last round game ended early I had spent the previous two hours preparing for Richard's Semi-Slav, and I found a 2009 WYCC game in this line where Richard played a speculative f5 pawn lunge. I hoped to coax him into something similar in our game, but he deviated with Qe7.

8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 0-0 11.Re1 c5 12.Bg5?!

I now consider this move to be inaccurate, as I believe that black wants to play some combination of cxd4, f6, e5 anyway, and I am just helping him do this. Instead of the text, I think I should have continued simply with 12.Bc2!, intending Bg5, Qd3 and after g6, to play Bh6, etc

[12.Bc2 b6 13.Bg5 f6 14.Qd3 g6 15.Bh6 Re8 16.Rad1]

12...f6 13.Bh4

Now my bishop is rather out of place on h4.

13...Qf7 14.Qe2 Nb6? 15.b4!

I played this move without any calculation as I felt that it was very strong. However, the game is about to become a much sharper struggle than it was before (where I had a slight advantage and was slowly building pressure), and I wasn't able to evaluate/calculate clearly enough to capitalize.

15...cxd4 16.c5 Be7 17.cxb6

Continuing with the plan, but I should have taken some time here to evaluate the alternatives. I failed to reaized how strong black's central play will be after the text.

[17.Nxd4! This was a very strong move, but I didn't even consider it.]

17...Bxb4 18.Red1 Bc3

I spent a considerable amount of time here (approximately 30 minutes) trying to come up with the best continuation for white. I felt that playing with B+N vs R with Nxd4 wasn't clear, and so I opted for keeping my rooks on.

19.Rac1

[19.Nxd4 Bxa1 20.Rxa1 I saw this position, but wasn't able to come to any definitive evaluation other than "unclear". Rybka believes that white has a slight advantage.]

19...e5 20.Qb5

This was the plan, but according to Rybka it doesn't promise white anything more than equality.

[20.Bg3!? Rybka's suggestion is very interesting - to give up the misplaced bishop on g3 for two central pawns and exchange the white knight for black's very important light-squared bishop. 20...Be6? 21.Bxe5! fxe5 22.Ng5 Qe7 23.Nxe6 Qxe6 24.Rxc3]

20...Be6 21.h3 Bxa2 22.bxa7 Rxa7 23.Bg3 Ra5 24.Qb6 Ra6

I was hesitant to play Qxb7 for two reasons. First, with the queens exchanged I lose some of my control of the central light squares which makes it easier for black to play g6, f5, etc. Also, even if my central light-squared blockade falters, as long as the queens are on it will be more dangerous for black to advance on the kingside because of a potential white counter attack.

25.Qb5 Ra5 26.Qb6

Richard chose to repeat the position here, and I accepted. It still wasn't clear to me how white should proceed if black tried to improve his position (by preparing f5, etc), and I felt that only black would have winning chances if I played on. I was also low on time, relative to my opponent, so taking the draw seemed like the best decision.

½-½