| |
Main
Date: 04 Apr 2006 04:59:38
From: Ron
Subject: A Panov-Botvinnik attack game
|
[Event "FICS rated standard game"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Me"]
[Black "Black"]
[WhiteElo "2055"]
[BlackElo "1966"]
[TimeControl "1800+30"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 7. Bd3 Qc7
8. c5 Ne4 9. Qc2 b6 10. O-O Bxc3 11. bxc3 Bb7 12. Ng5 Nxg5 13. Bxg5 bxc5
14. dxc5 h6 15. Be3 O-O 16. c4 dxc4 17. Bxc4 Qc6 18. f3 Na6 19. Rab1 Nc7
20. Rfd1 Nd5 21. Bd4 Rad8 22. Qe4 Ne7 23. Rxb7 Qxe4 24. fxe4 Nc6 25. Bxe6
Nxd4 26. Bd5 Ne2+ 27. Kf2 Nc3 28. Rd3 Na4 29. Rc7 a5 30. Ra3 Nb2 31. Rxa5
Kh8 32. Raa7 Nd3+ 33. Ke3 Ne5 34. a4 Ng4+ 35. Kd4 Rb8 36. Rxf7 Rxf7 37.
Rxf7 Rb4+ 38. Kc3 Rxa4 39. c6 Ra3+ 40. Kb4 Ra1 41. c7 Rb1+ 42. Kc5 Kh7
43. Rf8 Rc1+ 44. Kd6
{Black resigns} 1-0
Black plays the opening very aggresively, particularly his 7th and 8th
moves. He's got to be tempting fate here, but it's hard for me to see
anything that looks like a refutaiton.
Maybe 12 cb6 ab6 (... Qxc6 13.Bxe4!) 13.Bd2 0-0 14.Rfe1; does that seem
better than the game continuation?
I don't feel like white is better on move 15; 15. ... Nc6 16.c4?! d4!
and black is probably slightly better, but after 15. 0-0 white is
nominally in control again.
Crafty thinks 22.Bb5 is an improvement for white.
I totally missed 22. ... Nc6! in my enthusiasm thinking I'd won a piece.
Lucky for me, I found 23.Bxe6! after my longer think of the game,
keeping white in control, after which, it's mostly a matter of
technique.
My questions focus mainly on the opening. Is there a way for white to
get more given black's surprisingly aggressive play?
Thanks!
-Ron
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2006 11:08:44
From:
Subject: Re: A Panov-Botvinnik attack game
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > My questions focus mainly on the opening. Is there a way for white to
> > > get more given black's surprisingly aggressive play?
> >
> > Try the Gunderam Attack.
>
> My focus is trying to stay more in line with the isolated-pawn or
> isolate-pawn couple structures, since those fit in with the rest of my
> repetiore. I've had good success so far against the Caro-Kann by just
> playing a panov-botvinik as a Tarrasch Defense with an extra tempo.
>
> So while I definitely might explore the Gunderam attack, I'm trying to
> find more specific appropriate responses to black's surprisingly-early
> combination of Bb4, Ne4, and Qc7 before dxc4.
I skimmed through the game with Fritz8. He didn't see much wrong with
your approach, except for finding a significant improvement at move 12:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3
6. c5, the Gunderam Attack, is my preferred alternative here. It's
especially good in this move order. If White goes immediately into the
Gunderam with 5.c5, then 5...e5 is one of Black's better replies. After
5.Nc3 e6 as in your game, this is no longer true.
6... Bb4 7. Bd3 Qc7 8. c5
8. Qb3!? is a good alternative.
8... Ne4 9. Qc2 b6 10. O-O Bxc3 11. bxc3 Bb7 12. Ng5?!
Better 12. Ne5! bxc5 13. Bf4 Qc8 (13... Qe7 14. Qa4+) 14. Qa4+ Nc6
15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Nc4 O-O 17. Nd6 Qc7 18.Rab1 Bc8 19. dxc5 and I
definitely prefer White. Fritz thinks the text gives Black near
equality.
12... Nxg5 13. Bxg5 bxc5 14. dxc5 h6?!
14... Nd7 seems better, intending ...Nxc5. 15. Bxh7 is no threat:
15...g6 -+
15. Be3 O-O 16. c4 dxc4 17. Bxc4 Qc6 18. f3 Na6 19. Rab1 Nc7 20. Rfd1
Nd5 21. Bd4 Rad8?
Better either 21... Ba6 or 21... Rfd8.
22. Qe4
Not bad, but missing 22.Qb2! Rb8 (or 22... Ba8 23. Bb5 Qc7 24. Bxg7
Qxc5+ 25. Kh1 and White wins the Exchange, showing why 21...Rad8 was
the proverbial wrong rook.) 23. Bxg7 Qxc5+ 24. Kh1 Qxc4 (if 24... Bc6
25. Bxf8) 25. Bxf8 Rxf8 26. Rd4 Qc3 27. Qxc3 Nxc3 28.Rxb7 Nxa2 29. Rxa7
and wins.
22... Ne7??
A dreadful error. Better 22...Ba6, though White still stands better.
23. Rxb7 Qxe4 24. fxe4 and wins.
Overall, a pretty good game on your part, Ron, in my opinion.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Apr 2006 20:36:21
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A Panov-Botvinnik attack game
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> Overall, a pretty good game on your part, Ron, in my opinion.
Thank you, and thanks a lot for the comments.
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2006 09:09:23
From:
Subject: Re: A Panov-Botvinnik attack game
|
Ron wrote:
> My questions focus mainly on the opening. Is there a way for white to
> get more given black's surprisingly aggressive play?
Try the Gunderam Attack.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Apr 2006 20:16:49
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A Panov-Botvinnik attack game
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> > My questions focus mainly on the opening. Is there a way for white to
> > get more given black's surprisingly aggressive play?
>
> Try the Gunderam Attack.
My focus is trying to stay more in line with the isolated-pawn or
isolate-pawn couple structures, since those fit in with the rest of my
repetiore. I've had good success so far against the Caro-Kann by just
playing a panov-botvinik as a Tarrasch Defense with an extra tempo.
So while I definitely might explore the Gunderam attack, I'm trying to
find more specific appropriate responses to black's surprisingly-early
combination of Bb4, Ne4, and Qc7 before dxc4.
Thanks.
-Ron
|
|
