After round 2 Jack and I celebrated in a downtown Toronto pub for as long as we could. We had both won our games, which is reason enough to indulge, but I had also defeated an IM - the first in my career! Unlike in other cities that we've played in, though, this time we had a train to catch to get back to where we were staying, which cut our celebrations short. As we talked about what was to come, Jack and I were both excited about my prospects. 2/2 in an accelerated pairing system is a great start, and if the third round was paired properly I would have another 2300 opponent, giving me a great chance to go 3/3 and be on the top boards in the 4th round.
The third round was not paired properly, however. In fact, there have been pages upon pages written about this subject on Chesstalk: how the whole Canadian Open was ruined due to the Organizer's mix up. I wouldn't go that far, but these protests do have merit. After all, screwing up the pairings in Canada's largest tournament is a big deal, especially when an International Arbitre (Hal Bond) was being guided by a swiss pairing expert brought into Toronto to hold a clinic on chess arbitration and swiss pairings!
What was even worse, in my opinion, was how the organizers handled the situation on Chesstalk. At first, Erik Malmsten tried to tell me (in a very kind way) that I did not understand how accelerated pairings worked. Then Hal Bond and others defended themselves by saying, "Yes we mixed up the pairings, but only the people with 2/2 were affected!" I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea. It's ok to screw up when you only muddle with the top boards, right?
Anyway, the net result was that I was paired against GM Friedel on board 6, which also happened to be on the stage, and my game was broadcast on the projection screen as well as live over the Internet. I mention all of these factors because, in retrospect, they had a negative affect on my psyche during the game. I am normally nervous before a chess game, and this anxiety usually abates as soon as I play a few moves, but against Friedel I wasn't able to shake those feelings. After every five moves or so I had to leave the board and walk around because my breathing was so irregular! Honestly, I thought that if I stayed at the board my opponent would either complain that I was deliberately trying to annoy him, or call an ambulance because he was genuinely concerned for my well being. It was that bad.
The game started differently than I expected - my opponent played 1.d4 against me. I had not found any of his games in the databases that began this way. Josh is normally an e4 player, but according to the games I found he plays a very sharp and forcing variation against the French, which is easy to prepare against and probably the reason he chose to avoid a theoretical discussion in the opening.
1.d4 e6
Giving my opponent one more chance to play into my preparation :)
2.Nf3 f5!
The Classical Dutch! A very interesting and ambitious opening. Prior to this game I had only played this once in OTB play, where I lost to Gardner in Edmonton. That game, however, taught me some important lessons about the Dutch, foremost among them being that black's chances lie in the middlegame. In other words, I am playing my first game against a Grandmaster and I choose an opening that basically declares, "I'm going to mate you." How's that for chutzpah?!
3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 d6 7. Nc3 a5
7...a5 is a semi-waiting move that clamps down on white's queenside before white declares his intentions. White has several options here: he can play the position solidly with 8.b3, or play directly for e4 with moves like Re1 or Qc2.
8.Re1 Ne4
Black cannot allow e4 to be played unless he is in time to meet e4 with either e5 or f4. In this case, black is not ready for either and so ...Ne4 is forced. Now white doesn't gain much from capturing on e4 as the rook would be misplaced on e1 (as white would have to play f3 at some point, and the subsequent opening of the f-file would be more advantageous for white if his rook hadn't moved).
9.Nd2!?
An interesting decision because not only is it an obscure side-line, it is also what Rybka chooses when allowed to think without an opening book. Jack and I often have discussions on the subject of chess engines and how they have affected not only the way people prepare, but the way they play as well. In this case I'm positive that Josh didn't prepare for me, and given that he never plays 1.d4 he has probably never faced the Classical Dutch. 9.Nd2 was his "natural" reaction, although I would argue that our natural ideas are becoming more and more machine-like.
The truly interesting thing about this position, though, is that I played black against Rybka in this exact line when I was at Robert's place, immediately before I left to play in Toronto. Robert had been working on a new way to study openings and that night he put my openings to the test.
The method of study consisted of me playing numerous games against Rybka, alternating colours each time. When I was white I had to have at least an equal position after 20 moves. As black I was allowed a slight disadvantage after 20 moves. This was a great way to test my opening knowledge and also my understanding of the middlegames I get from my openings.
9...Nxc3 10. bxc3 Nc6 11. e4 e5 12. d5 Nb8 13. c5 Na6 14. c6 bxc6 15.dxc6
15...f4! 16. gxf4 Rxf4 17. Nc4 Rg4 18. Ne3 Rg6 19. Kh1 Qe8 20. Nd5 Bd8?!
Jack and Rybka both criticized this move for being too passive. I have to agree - ...Bh4 looks a lot better. But, the idea of protecting c7 with the bishop is fairly typical for this line of the Dutch.
21. f4
A critical middlegame position. I have played well up until this point. My decision to develop my knight to a6 was correct, and the plan of taking on c6 and playing f4 was exactly what Rybka suggested. In fact, Rybka even agreed with my rook's journey to g6. But, all that aside, what does black do now?
I spent over 30 minutes on this move and then I played a whopper that essentially lost on the spot. Unfortunately, even though I saw the best move I discarded it because I couldn't see the final follow-up. I felt it was correct, though, and I wonder if I would have made a different move against someone other than a GM.
In the game I captured on f4, which caused some people watching my game online to send me nasty text messages (thanks Robert). What should I have done instead? More important than finding the correct move, though, is finding black's next correct 5 moves that follow.
I will post the solution later.
4 comments:
Another interesting post. Thanks Jamin. As for a reasonable solution to the diagrammed position, while I do not have the ability to see all the pertinent lines it strikes me that 1. ...Rxg2 poses problems for white, in particular related to subsequent pressure on the important e4 pawn. Basically, white seems desperately weak on the light squares and black's bishops have tremendous potential energy in the resulting positions. It's important to realize, however, that after 2. Kxg2 Qg6+, if white is allowed to play f5 with tempo then black appears to be busted. So...here goes. It appears that 3. Kh1 is forced, otherwise white runs into nasty bishop checks. And then after 3. ...Bh3 threatening mate it seems that white's only viable defense is with the queen on the second rank (4. Rg1 Qxe4+; 4. Re2 Bg4). I get bogged down in the resulting variations but it seems that while white is under some pressure he is able to defend. If 4. Qd2 then I wonder about lines involving 4. ...Bh5 and subsequently Nc5! threatening Nxe4 (sometimes sacrificed after a premature f5 in a few variations I explored) with tempo. But after 4. Qe2 I don't see an adequate follow up for black. 4. ...Bg4 5. Qe3 and then what? ...exf4 always seem bad as it allows the white bishop to enter the game on a fantastic square and which gives the Ra1 scope on the first rank. All of this leads me to believe that black needs to play Nc5 earlier, but I'll be damned if I can figure out precisely when. :)
You're solution is very close, and your explanation of what is happening in the position is certainly more lucid than what was going through my mind at the time. The question is, though, if you were in my shoes, would you play Rxg2 in that position? It seems like the right move, but the follow-up isn't completely clear.
Indeed, Rxg2 is the correct response. After Kxg2 Qg6+ Kh1 I rejected Bh3 because it didn't seem to lead anywhere, and instead I focussed on Bg4. This forces Qd3, which allows Nc5 with tempo, and after Qe3 I reached a road block. I couldn't see how to continue and therefore I rejected the entire exchange sacrifice line.
Rybka points out that after Qe3 I have the forceful Nxe4! when black is clearly better, although the position is very sharp and the win is far from clear.
It's interesting that after your Bg4 Qd3 Nc5 Qe3 we have exactly the same position as one of my variations.
No, I don't think I would have played Rxg2 against a GM (or IM or FM for that matter), mostly because I couldn't see the Nxe4 follow up after the white queen ends up on e3. It sure is tempting however. The power of the bishops, the exposed king, the weakness of the light squares, pressure on e4 -- all in all these factors seem to provide good compensation. But against a really strong player correct calculation is absolutely necessary. I mean, sac the exchange without adequate compensation and the game is as good as over. Unless black sees Nxe4! at the end of the Rxg2 lines, therefore, it is difficult to appreciate that black has sufficient compensation.
Interestingly, I don't think I would hesitate to play Rxg2 in a blitz game. It just "feels" right, and I would trust that either: a. I would find a crushing move later; or b. my opponent would blunder in the ensuing complications.
I justified my decision to Jack and Yan in much the same way that you did: against a GM I wouldn't sacrifice the exchange when the outcome isn't clear, but against almost anyone else I would. Their answer: it doesn't matter who you're playing - play the board! Another lesson learned :)
Post a Comment