Mark Van der Hoorn - Nicolas Croad
Summer Cup, Wellington 2008
1.e4 c6
Some people think the Caro-Kann is a drawing opening however their judgement is often based on elite level chess which is quite different from games between non-master players. I think that the Caro-Kann is excellent for use against lower rated opposition (who might be trying to dull the game down) because there are no symmetric pawn structures and there are several different ways to play the opening. Mark also plays the Caro-Kann so he was also facing the challenge of creating pressure against his own defence though he would typically choose the Larsen variation 4...Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 if he was black.
2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 e6
10.Bf4 Qa5+ 11.Qd2!?
After the game we also discussed the possibility to play 11.Kf1 (or even 11.Ke2) with the idea of artificially securing the king with Kg1 and keeping an attacking rook on the h-file. Still this plan looks rather too artificial to cause Black serious problems.
11...Bb4!?
Maybe the most simple reply was 11...Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 Ngf6 and the position is completely level as neither position has any significant weaknesses or clear plans. I was trying to discourage Mark from castling queenside and I didn't feel that the position could be too bad as otherwise 11.c3 would be a strong reply to 10...Qa5+ forcing a similar situation.
12.c3 Be7 13.b4 Qa6 14.Qe2
This move is not very incisive, it was possible to put significant pressure on the Black position with 14.Nh5! Ndf6! 15.Nxg7+ (15.Ng3 Nd5 16.Nh5 Ndf6! =) 15...Kf8 16.Nxe6+ fxe6 17.Ne5 Rh7 18.Rh3 which can only be judged as unclear, because it is almost impossible to see how Black is going to break free or White is going to develop the initiative.
14...Qxe2+ 15.Kxe2 Ngf6 16.Kd3?!
It was probably better to correct the earlier error and play 17.Ke2.
17...O-O 18.Ne4 Rfd8 19.Bc7 f5!? 20.Nc5?
This loses a pawn which Mark simply missed. Much better is 20.Ned2 when the position remains roughly level though Black can take the initiative. An interesting follow up is 20...e5 21.Bxd8 e4+ 22.Kc2 (22.Nxe4 fxe4+ 23.Kxe4 Rxd8 is excellent for Black.) 22...Rxd8 and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange. This might be refuted by 22.Ke2! Rxd8 23.Ng1 Bxh4 24.g3 when Black has a pawn for the exchange but no immediate threats.
Better though less incisive is 20...Rc8 21.Bf4 (21.Bg3 g5!) 21...a5 and now if 22.a3 axb4 23.axb4 Nxf2+ wins a pawn so Black has achieved a reasonable amount of play to compensate for the slight weakness of the e6 pawn.
20...Nxc5+ 21.bxc5 Rd7 22.Bg3 Bxc5 23.Rae1 Kf7
24.Nd2 b5!
Stopping the white knight from reaching c4 and creating an excellent post for my own knight on d5.
25.Nb3 Bb6 26.f3 Nf6 27.Re5
27...Nd5 28.Re2?!
28...Rc8 29.c4
30.Kxc4 Rb7 31.Rfe1?!
31...c5 32.Rxe6
34...cxb3 35.R1xe3 bxa2
Summer Cup, Wellington 2008
1.e4 c6
Some people think the Caro-Kann is a drawing opening however their judgement is often based on elite level chess which is quite different from games between non-master players. I think that the Caro-Kann is excellent for use against lower rated opposition (who might be trying to dull the game down) because there are no symmetric pawn structures and there are several different ways to play the opening. Mark also plays the Caro-Kann so he was also facing the challenge of creating pressure against his own defence though he would typically choose the Larsen variation 4...Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 if he was black.
2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 e6
10.Bf4 Qa5+ 11.Qd2!?
The most obvious choice was to transpose into the old main-line of the Capablanca variation with 11.Bd2 Qc7. This has been considered less dangerous than the similar position with white having a pawn on h5 instead of h4, however it has the slight advantage that now it would be extremely dangerous for Black to castle kingside because white will almost certainly be able to play Ng5 whenever he pleases with the pawn on h4.
After the game we also discussed the possibility to play 11.Kf1 (or even 11.Ke2) with the idea of artificially securing the king with Kg1 and keeping an attacking rook on the h-file. Still this plan looks rather too artificial to cause Black serious problems.
11...Bb4!?
Maybe the most simple reply was 11...Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 Ngf6 and the position is completely level as neither position has any significant weaknesses or clear plans. I was trying to discourage Mark from castling queenside and I didn't feel that the position could be too bad as otherwise 11.c3 would be a strong reply to 10...Qa5+ forcing a similar situation.
12.c3 Be7 13.b4 Qa6 14.Qe2
This move is not very incisive, it was possible to put significant pressure on the Black position with 14.Nh5! Ndf6! 15.Nxg7+ (15.Ng3 Nd5 16.Nh5 Ndf6! =) 15...Kf8 16.Nxe6+ fxe6 17.Ne5 Rh7 18.Rh3 which can only be judged as unclear, because it is almost impossible to see how Black is going to break free or White is going to develop the initiative.
After the game we also looked at 14.Ne2 Ngf6 15.O-O O-O 16.Ng3 when I believe Black has equalised but no more and there is still a game to play.
14...Qxe2+ 15.Kxe2 Ngf6 16.Kd3?!
This move is a little naive as centralising the king turns out to be not very appropriate. Eventually the White king comes under fire and after Black's reply a White rook becomes occupied with a very menial defensive task.
16...Ng4!
17.Rhf1?!
It was probably better to correct the earlier error and play 17.Ke2.
17...O-O 18.Ne4 Rfd8 19.Bc7 f5!? 20.Nc5?
This loses a pawn which Mark simply missed. Much better is 20.Ned2 when the position remains roughly level though Black can take the initiative. An interesting follow up is 20...e5 21.Bxd8 e4+ 22.Kc2 (22.Nxe4 fxe4+ 23.Kxe4 Rxd8 is excellent for Black.) 22...Rxd8 and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange. This might be refuted by 22.Ke2! Rxd8 23.Ng1 Bxh4 24.g3 when Black has a pawn for the exchange but no immediate threats.
Better though less incisive is 20...Rc8 21.Bf4 (21.Bg3 g5!) 21...a5 and now if 22.a3 axb4 23.axb4 Nxf2+ wins a pawn so Black has achieved a reasonable amount of play to compensate for the slight weakness of the e6 pawn.
20...Nxc5+ 21.bxc5 Rd7 22.Bg3 Bxc5 23.Rae1 Kf7
It would be possible to criticise this move which sets up a potential knight fork on the e5 square
however this would be completely unreasonable. There is no danger of this tactic succeeding because there is no way to simultaniously oust the knight from g4 and setup the threat. In the absence of this tactic Black should use the piece with the least potential (the king not the rook) to defend the weakness on e6.
however this would be completely unreasonable. There is no danger of this tactic succeeding because there is no way to simultaniously oust the knight from g4 and setup the threat. In the absence of this tactic Black should use the piece with the least potential (the king not the rook) to defend the weakness on e6.
24.Nd2 b5!
Stopping the white knight from reaching c4 and creating an excellent post for my own knight on d5.
25.Nb3 Bb6 26.f3 Nf6 27.Re5
After the game Mark pointed out the tactical shot 27...Bc7 which may have won the exchange. During the game I relied on his calculation and assumed that he had not left such a tactic on (I was surprised by his next move because of this) but I believe that my judgement was correct in any case. After 27...Bc7 28.Nc5! White may end up with an exchange less but the remaining minor piece configuration makes the conversion process significantly more difficult. Actually since I must exchange my bishop for the knight once the White knight goes to the c5 square I didn't want a rook occupying that square either which explains my next move.
27...Nd5 28.Re2?!
Since winning the exchange doesn't make my task easier White should have used this to advantage and followed up with 28.Rfe1 Re8 when the rook is not quite so well placed as the game.
28...Rc8 29.c4
This leads to further exposure to the White king however otherwise ...c5 is expremely strong.
29...bxc4+?!
During the game I also considered 29...c5! 30.cxd5 c4+ when Black has excellent winning chances but I could not bring myself to sacrifice in such a nice position. Had I been more aware of the principal of two weaknesses I might have decided my chances were not so great in the game and that the sacrifice was entirely justified. Here for example 31.Kd2 Rxd5 32.Nc1 b4! the White pieces are so tied up it is clear that Black has compensation for the sacrificed material.
Once you realise that Black is not going to capture the d4 pawn because it is actually blocking the White pieces at the moment the strength of the Black position becomes clear. White can't do anything to stop Black playing a7-a5-a4 and preparing a breakthrough for the two queenside passed pawns. For example 33.Be1 a5 34.Kc2 Bxd4 or 33.Re5 a5 34.Rxd5 exd5 35.Re1 a4 and I can't see how White is going to deal with the passed pawns.
I can justify however that my choice was quite practical however. For example only examining this after the game did I realise that Black should not seek to capture the d4 pawn on move 32 because this opens lines for the White bishop allowing it to come to the queenside to deal with the pawn storm on that side.
30.Kxc4 Rb7 31.Rfe1?!
31.Bd6 stops the immediate ...c5 break and makes it much more difficult for Black to advance. Probably I can't break through with only one weakness to the White position (on d4) and a second one must be found or created. Still even now I can't really find a dangerous plan for Black to follow up with.
31...c5 32.Rxe6
I had not really considered Marks last move which stretches a difficult position too thin. In these situations something usually turns up.
Better was 32.dxc5 Bxc5 33.Nxc5 Rb4+ 34.Kd3 Rxc5 but Black is a clear pawn ahead here, the e6 pawn is immune 35.Rxe6 Rc3+ 36.Kd2 Rd4+ 37.Ke2 Kxe6 wins, while 35.Bd6 gets mated after 35...Rc3+ 36.Kd2 Rd4#.
32...Ne3+!
With the rooks split I can win the exchange on e6 at any time.
33.Kd3
If 33.R6xe3 cxd4+ 34.Kd3 dxe3 wins a whole exchange.
33...c4+ 34.Kd2
After 34.Kxe3 cxb3 35.Kd3 b2 36.R6e2 Bxd4 37.Kxd4 b1=Q 38.Rxb1 Rxb1 White only loses the exchange but winning here should not present significant problems.
34...cxb3 35.R1xe3 bxa2
Significant further material loss can not be avoided so Mark resigned.
0-1
Lessons from this game
a) The principal of two weaknesses is a significant component in the selection of a winning plan. Here I felt that my position was near to winning before playing 29...bxc4+ but I didn't use this principal to decide on a winning plan following my chosen move and this lead to an over-estimation of my position and the selection of an inferior move.
b) It is preferable not to defend against ghosts. I was able to make a good defensive move 23...Kf7 not restricting the mobility of one of my rooks because I was being concrete about the threat of a knight fork on e5. This paid off in the game because my rook was never forced to defend the weakness on e6.
c) Sometimes a pawn should not be captured when it is blocking the lines for the opponents pieces and/or forces them to defend it. In the line beginning 29...c5 this principal turns a marginal sacrifice of a piece for three pawns into a powerfull one of a piece for two pawns.
a) The principal of two weaknesses is a significant component in the selection of a winning plan. Here I felt that my position was near to winning before playing 29...bxc4+ but I didn't use this principal to decide on a winning plan following my chosen move and this lead to an over-estimation of my position and the selection of an inferior move.
b) It is preferable not to defend against ghosts. I was able to make a good defensive move 23...Kf7 not restricting the mobility of one of my rooks because I was being concrete about the threat of a knight fork on e5. This paid off in the game because my rook was never forced to defend the weakness on e6.
c) Sometimes a pawn should not be captured when it is blocking the lines for the opponents pieces and/or forces them to defend it. In the line beginning 29...c5 this principal turns a marginal sacrifice of a piece for three pawns into a powerfull one of a piece for two pawns.
No comments:
Post a Comment