Less than one month has passed since I played Leon Shevelenko. This nice guy seems to have been prepared for a game with me much better than in September. I assume he had read my reports because he had not committed any serious mistakes in the opening, King’ Indian Defense, which I play regularly (it is good to know that my opponents began playing better with me, since our games become more rich and interesting).
In my game with Leon I had applied the so-called “d4-knight pattern” explained to you many times. It is shown in the upper part of the picture where you see two strategies of supporting an insolent d4-knight characterized by e5-move and c5-move. I chose e5-strategy but would have been very glad to support my d4-knight with c5-move too. Thus, if White had chosen a naïve move 6. Be3 (in the very upper small position in the picture) then 6…c5 would have happened and White could not win a pawn by taking d4-knight since after 7. dxc6 (en passant) Black would take 7…dxc6 protecting his d4-knight by a queen and securing a good position.
Having understood that Leon found a good idea – he played 6. c5 by himself! Usually this move is played after castling, the development of pieces, etc., but I want to give Leon a credit for playing it so earlier in this opening. A reason for that is in the insolence of the Black’s play with his d4-knight – he had not made d6-move by himself! After White’s move 6. c5 I thought a little longer than usual (yet I played much quicker than Leon during a whole game which, like last time, resulted in the tremendous time pressure of my opponent later).
I had decided to attack c5-pawn by moves 6…b7-b6 and 7…Qd8-e7 but Leon responded with 7. b2-b4 and 8. Bc1-a3. At first sight it looks ridiculous but Black cannot refute such White’s arrangement of the pieces so easily. I had decided to simply finish a development of my pieces and only then go for a play in a queen flunk. By the way (I repeat it again for those who are familiar with the theory of the King’ Indian Defense opening) that the White’s plan is in an attack on the queen flunk and Black’s plan is in an attack on the king flunk, which justifies Leon’s strange play.
Almost all positions in the middle of the game have such an interesting arrangement of the pieces in the queen flunk. Just look at the lower part of the picture where I had shown the “Main Variant of the game” which could have occurred if in position 1 (after 11. Nd2) I had played 11…Ng4 followed by the positions connected by the red arrows (sides simply alternate their moves). In notation this variant is recorded as 11… Ng4 12. O-O Qh4 13. h3 Bh6 14. hxg4 Bf4 15. g3 Bxg3 16. fxg3 Qxg3 17.Kh1 Qxd3. Let’s analyze it more deeply.
There are the following grounds for this attack against the white king. Leon still had not castled, many of his pieces were located on the queen of the board; on the contrary I had already castled and my pieces were well located. I had also noticed in my calculations then after my first move in the variant, 11…Ng4, I would threaten 12…Nxf2 so White could not play 12. h3 because of it (12. f3 is also bad because of 12…Ne3). So White had to castle, after which I would jump my queen to h4. After necessary 13. h3 I could add to the attack my dark-squared bishop by maneuver Bg7-h6-f4-g3 (as mentioned in the notation above). All of this would have resulted in either a perpetual check or the powerful continuation of the attack at the white king.
But I had not made up my mind to play this variant and decided to play 11... d6. This move was good but not so strong as 11…Ng4. It allowed Leon to have made a castle without any problems and confront my pieces in the center and all other parts of the board. After further interesting fight, Leon had managed to trade my active pieces and stabilize position completely. Having understood that my position could become slightly worse I decided to offer Leon a draw, with my move 21… e4. By the way it is probably not a good move since it had weakened a big diagonal (White could simply take e4-pawn). While offering a draw I had also taken into consideration that Leon was short on time (approximately 2 minutes on his clock were against 10 minutes on my clock).
There are some conclusions from this report. Concerning a game in general, - Leon has made some correct conclusions from our last game with me; he has found an interesting arrangement of his pieces; despite some not essential inaccuracies he had managed to play decently and interesting. There is still an important factor – not rational time management but I wish him luck to get over this difficulty. There is also a negative side of my play. Sometimes I become faint hearted and play cowardly. Well… I wish all of you to live till my age and see what would happen…!
Section 3 Report by Bryan Andrei
Stepping into the ICA chess quads feels like entering a grandmaster’s mind, where every move is a story and every game is a battle of wits and strategy. As Kasparov once said, “Chess is mental torture”, but here, it is the kind of torture we all willingly sign up for, bonded by the thrill of the game. The air buzzes not only with the sound of the clocks but with laughter, shared tips and the kind of friendship that only a game as ancient and noble as chess can forge. Watching how other players maneuver through the intricate dance of pawns and queens we sometimes complete our move goals looking at others’ games.
Yesterday, I played at quads again for the first time in what seems like forever. My experience however was nothing short of incredible. Although I did not top my quad (which was filled with talented, aspiring and brilliant minds), I did finish with two victories. My second game against Sean Fiterman was the most enthralling however. It was tough, and I finished with about two minutes left with my clock. As white, I started off with the Vienna. We entered a complex middle game where I was up a pawn, and had the bishop pair. We were playing tough moves, and when time pressure got to us we started making mistakes.
On move 28, Sean bravely played Rxd3, winning a pawn. Quickly seeing his combination with Qxd3, e4+, I immediately played Qg4, which was part of my plan anyway. However, I missed that after Qxd3 and e4+, I had Qd6, and I was up a full rook in a winning position.
Later on, on move 33, Sean was forced to recapture my pawn on g7. I thought quickly (there was no time to spare!) and played Qh6, thinking that after Kg8, I could play Rxb7 on the 35th move. This however did not work and Rxf1+ would ruin my plans. When I was analyzing the game however, I realized that Rxb7+ on the 34th move would indeed work, as it would come with check, not allowing time for Rxf1+.
As they say in chess, the winner is the one who doesn’t make the last mistake. On move 46, in a time scramble, Sean played the seemingly normal Re1+. Here, Nf7 was the correct idea. Now after Kd4, Nf7, Rd7, Rf1 does not work as my king is one step closer to the a and and b pawns. Rd1+ as was played in the game doesn't change things.
To conclude, my experience at Quads was memorable. With many interesting games, I will never forget this fun filled chess Saturday!
Congratulations to Bryan Andrei for winning our report contest, and a free entry to the tournament. If you want a chance to win a free entry into our Saturday Quads, email a report to icanewjersey@gmail.com, following these guidelines. We hope you guys have had a great week and we hope to see you at our next Quad which is October 26. Enjoy and we hope to see you soon!
Visitors: 18