The following first-round tournament game featured an early deviation from normal Slav lines with the Nbd2 development. White's unchallenging setup gives Black a small plus out of the opening with comfortable development. Some interesting analytic points come up in the opening and early middlegame where it was revealed that I could have made better decisions:
- Move 7, where Black could have played less stereotypically and obtained an advantage in the center.
- Move 12, where Black should have thought twice about moving the rook off the h-file instead of automatically castling.
- Move 13, where Black could have opened up the center to his advantage.
In the middlegame, a premature pawn thrust from White is mishandled by Black, who could have obtained an easy game by redeploying the Nf6 to a better square. This inaccuracy was however offset by White allowing what kingside pressure he had to be nullified. Black on move 23 again passes up the chance to open the center to his advantage, focusing only on the immediate material gain of a pawn. As a result, the kingside and center become closed and play shifts to the queenside. Black is too slow in redeploying his forces, however, and White gains a winning advantage before missing the best continuation and sliding into a draw.
Recent posts have highlighted the importance of CCT (Checks, Captures and Threats). Here, White could have won the game by using CCT as part of his thinking process on move 37. There are only two captures on the board and one wins by force (Bxa6), as the resulting series of recaptures ends with a knight fork. Once you consider the possibility of Bxa6, the rest is actually rather easy to see and calculate. However, the pawn is "obviously" protected and if a player does not force themselves to consider non-obvious moves like that, they will be overlooked.
1.e4 | 1,161,232 | 54% | 2421 | --- |
1.d4 | 943,611 | 55% | 2434 | --- |
1.Nf3 | 280,295 | 56% | 2441 | --- |
1.c4 | 181,395 | 56% | 2442 | --- |
1.g3 | 19,649 | 56% | 2427 | --- |
1.b3 | 14,142 | 54% | 2427 | --- |
1.f4 | 5,868 | 48% | 2376 | --- |
1.Nc3 | 3,749 | 51% | 2385 | --- |
1.b4 | 1,735 | 48% | 2378 | --- |
1.a3 | 1,187 | 53% | 2403 | --- |
1.e3 | 1,063 | 48% | 2408 | --- |
1.d3 | 940 | 50% | 2378 | --- |
1.g4 | 658 | 46% | 2359 | --- |
1.h4 | 441 | 52% | 2372 | --- |
1.c3 | 419 | 51% | 2423 | --- |
1.h3 | 277 | 56% | 2416 | --- |
1.a4 | 106 | 59% | 2469 | --- |
1.Nh3 | 88 | 66% | 2510 | --- |
1.f3 | 87 | 45% | 2429 | --- |
1.Na3 | 40 | 63% | 2477 | --- |
Please, wait...
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nbd2 Bf5 5.b3N e6 6.a3 Be7 7.Nh4 Bg6 7...Be4 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.e3 Nbd7 10.Bd3 Qc7 11.h3 0-0 12.h4 12.Bb2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 Bd6 12...e5 13.cxd5 cxd5 13...exd4 14.exd4 Nxd5 14.Bb2 e4 15.Bb5 a6 16.Bf1 Rac8 17.Rc1 Qd8 18.g4?! 18.g3 18...Rxc1 19.Bxc1 Nh7 19...Ne8 20.g5 Nd6 20.g5 f6 21.h5 Qe8 22.Bh3 22.hxg6!? Qxg6 23.Qc2= 22...f5 23.f4 gxh5 23...exf3 24.Nxf3 gxh5 24.Bf1 g6 25.Be2 Qf7 26.Nb1 Rc8 27.Kf2 Nhf8 28.Bd2 Ne6 29.Bb4 Ng7 29...Bxb4!? 30.axb4 30.Qd2 Nb8?! 31.Bxe7 Qxe7 32.Rc1 Qd7? 32...Rxc1 33.Qxc1 Qd8 33.Rxc8+± Qxc8 34.Nc3 Qc7 35.Nxd5+- Qd6 36.Qc3 Nc6 37.Qc4 37.Bxa6 bxa6 38.Qxc6 Qxc6 39.Ne7+ Kf7 40.Nxc6+- 37...Kf8 38.Nf6 38.Nb6!? 38...Ne7 39.a4 Ne8 40.Nxe8 Kxe8= 41.Kg3 Qc6 42.Kf2 ½–½
- Start an analysis engine:
- Try maximizing the board:
- Use the four cursor keys to replay the game. Make moves to analyse yourself.
- Press Ctrl-B to rotate the board.
- Drag the split bars between window panes.
- Download&Clip PGN/GIF/FEN/QR Codes. Share the game.
- Games viewed here will automatically be stored in your cloud clipboard (if you are logged in). Use the cloud clipboard also in ChessBase.
- Create an account to access the games cloud.
Class B | - | ChessAdmin | - | ½–½ | D11 | |
Please, wait...
The winning 37.Bxa6 raises an interesting question. (1) Should this move be found by first spotting the potential Knight fork and subsequently deducing that Bxa6 is a safe capture, or (2) Should Bxa7 be found by examining every CCT and their resulting positions? I always thought the former, but am curious what others believe.
ReplyDelete