| |
Main
Date: 07 Aug 2005 00:38:05
From: Leopold
Subject: My first GM game: please analysis
|
Please help me with analysis of my game. You will find the game in PGN and
then with my notes. Thank you all in advance.
Leopold
[Event "106th US Open"]
[Site "Phoenix, Arizona"]
[Date "2005.08.06"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Yermolinsky, Alex"]
[Black "Lacrimosa, Leopold"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "2622"]
[BlackElo "1759"]
[EventDate "2005.08.06"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. e3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Nge7
8. dxe5 Qxd1+ 9. Rxd1 Be6 10. a3 O-O 11. Nf3 Nd5 12. Rc1 Rfe8 13. Bb5 Bd7
14. Bxc6 Bxc6 15. O-O Rac8 16. Rfd1 h6 17. Bd4 a6 18. b3 Bd7 19. Nd2 b6 20.
Nc4 Be6 21. f3 Re7 22. Kf2 Rd7 23. e4 Ne7 24. Be3 Rxd1 25. Rxd1 b5 26. Na5
c5 27. Rd6 c4 28. bxc4 bxc4 29. f4 c3 30. f5 Ba2 31. Rxa6 c2 32. Bc1 Rd8 33.
Rd6 Rb8 34. Nc6 Nxc6 35. Rxc6 Bb3 36. Ke3 Rb5 37. Rc8+ Kh7 38. Kd4 Ba4 39.
Rc4 Rb1 40. Rxa4 Rxc1 41. Kd3 Rg1 42. Kxc2 Rxg2+ 43. Kd3 Rxh2 44. Ra7 h5 45.
Rxf7 Rh3+ 46. Kd4 Rxa3 47. f6 Rg3 48. e6 Kg8 49. Rd7 gxf6 50. Rd8+ 1-0
(20) Yermolinsky,A (2622) - Lacrimosa,L (1759) [D07]
106th US Open Phoenix, Arizona (1), 06.08.2005
[Lacrimosa, Leopold]
I played my first US Open in 1997 in Orlando Florida. There GM Alex "The
Yermonator" Yermolinsky took clear first. 8 years later, I play my second US
Open Championship and am paired against the Yermonator in round one. This is
my first game against a GM in a tournament. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 The Queen's Gambit
2...Nc6 Chigorin's Defense Chigorin's defense is a very reasonable attempt
by Black to seize the initiative and obtain a slight lead in development.
3.cxd5 A very natural move -Andrew Soltis 3...Qxd5 4.e3 Passive and safe,
but less active than 4.Nf3. 4...e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3!? Nge7?! A
mistake. Probable due to nervous since it was my very first tournament game
against a GM. 7...exd4 8.Ne2 Bg4 9.Bxd4 0-0-0! gives Black an edge. White
can improve with 9.f3 allowing Black a chance at a doubious sacrifice with
9...Bxf3?! 10.gxf3 Qxf3. But even on this Black can avoid all complacations
with 8...Nf6! [ I've played 7...e4 in blitz games and have had some
interesting positions.] 8.dxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Rxd1 Be6 10.a3 -5.min 10...0-0 -7.min
11.Nf3 Nd5 12.Rc1 The computer liked 12.Bb5 better 12...Rfe8?! Better was
12...Rfd8. 13.Bb5 Bd7 Now I'm threatening 14...Nxc3 15.Rxc3 Nxe5.
Yermolinsky spent a lot of time on this move before finally deciding to give
up his bishop for my knight. 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.0-0 Rac8 I really wanted to
play 15...Nxc3 16.Rxc3 Bxf3 17.gxf3 but 17...Rxe5 allows White to gain
access to my back rank with 18.Rxc6. And if 17...c6 instead, 18.Rb3 b5
19.Rc3 gives White the edge. 16.Rfd1 h6 Now 16...Nxc3 17.Rxc3 Bxf3 18.gxf3
Rxe5 doesn't work due to 19.Rxc7! 17.Bd4 a6 18.b3 Bd7 19.Nd2 b6
20.Nc4 -44.min 20...Be6 -43.min 21.f3 Re7 22.Kf2! Begining to bring his King
to the centre for the end game. 22...Rd7 23.e4 Ne7 24.Be3 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 b5
26.Na5 c5 27.Rd6 c4 28.bxc4 bxc4 29.f4 c3 30.f5 -70.min 30...Ba2 -.54min
31.Rxa6 c2 32.Bc1 Rd8?! 33.Rd6 Rb8 Here Yermolinshki spent over 30 minutes
thinking befor playing 34.Nc6 Nxc6 35.Rxc6 Bb3 36.Ke3 Rb5 37.Rc8+ Kh7 38.Kd4
Ba4 39.Rc4 Rb1 40.Rxa4 -91.min 40...Rxc1 -.68min 41.Kd3 Rg1 42.Kxc2 Rxg2+
43.Kd3 Rxh2 44.Ra7 h5 45.Rxf7 Rh3+ 46.Kd4 Rxa3 47.f6!! Rg3 48.e6 Kg8 49.Rd7
gxf6 50.Rd8+ White -95.min, Black -75.min [ Here I resigned in lew of
50.Rd8+ Kh7 51.e7 Rg1 52.e8Q Rd1+ 53.Ke3 Rxd8 54.Qxd8 Kg6 55.Qe8+ Kg5 56.Qh8
h4 57.Kd4 Kg4 58.Kd5 h3 59.Ke6 Kg3 60.Qxh3+ Kxh3 61.Kxf6] 1-0
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2005 17:34:07
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: My first GM game: please analysis (Tschigorin Defense)
|
Leopold wrote:
> Please help me with analysis of my game. You will find the game in PGN and
> then with my notes. Thank you all in advance.
> (20) Yermolinsky,A (2622) - Lacrimosa,L (1759) [D07]
> 106th US Open Phoenix, Arizona (1), 06.08.2005
> [Lacrimosa, Leopold]
> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3!? Nge7?! A
> mistake. Probable due to nervous since it was my very first tournament game
> against a GM. 7...exd4 8.Ne2 Bg4 9.Bxd4 0-0-0! gives Black an edge. White
> can improve with 9.f3 allowing Black a chance at a doubious sacrifice with
> 9...Bxf3?! 10.gxf3 Qxf3. But even on this Black can avoid all complacations
> with 8...Nf6! [ I've played 7...e4 in blitz games and have had some
> interesting positions.]
The game move loses a pawn, but I'm not convinced of a Black advantage
in the variations you give.
7...exd4 8. Ne2 Bg4 9. Bxd4 0-0-0 10. f3 Qa5+ (10...Be6 11. Qa4 Nxd4 12.
Nxd4 Kb8 13. Be2 Nf6 14. Qb5 =) 11. Kf2 Nxd4 (11...Nf6!? 12. Qe1! (12.
fxg4 Nxg4+ 13. Kg1 Nxe3! 14. Qc1 Nxf1 15. Bc3 Qc5+ 16. Kxf1 Rhe8 17. Qf4
f6 18. Qf2 Qc4 19. Re1 Ne5 and Black has more than enough compensation
20. Qxa7 Nd3 21. Rd1 Rxe2! wins) 12...Qf5 13. Kg1 Bh5 14. Rc1 unclear/=)
12. Nxd4 Be6 13. Qc2 =
But it seems like everybody is playing 9. f3 anyway, and the sacrifice
9...Bxf3 10. gxf3 Qxf3 11. Bxd4! Nxd4 12. Qxd4 Qxh1 13. Qxg7 0-0-0 14.
Qxh8 Qxh2 15. Qg7 Qh4+ 16. Qg3 Qb4+ 17. Kf2 Nf6 18. Bg2 isn't very
promising. Black can get a third pawn for the piece, but the Black pawns
are scattered and the white pieces are developing a lot of activity.
Indeed 8...Bg4 doesn't look so good, so 8...Nf6 probably is a better
move. After 9. Nxd4 0-0 10. Nb5 has a bad track record, but 10...Qg5 11.
Nxc7 Bg4 (which is played 100% of the time, but Black should seriously
consider 11...Rd8 or 11...Rb8) 12. Bxf6! gxf6 13. Qd5 puts the black
strategy into question. White has a solid pawn more and the white knight
will get out by d5 or b5. 10...Bg4 is a nice try but after 11. Nxc7 Qxd1
(11...Qh5 12. Qb3 Rab8 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Qb5 +/-) 12. Rxd1 Rac8 13. f3
Rxc7 14. Bxf6 gxf6 (after 14...Be6 15. Bc3 Bxa2 White should have a
definite advantage because of the bishops pair) 15. fxg4 Re8 16. Be2
(16. Kf2 Ne5, White can't hold the pawn anyway) 16...Rxe3 17. Kf2 Rce7
18. Rd2 White is perhaps better. Shredder rates this as almost +1.00 for
White but I'm not sure if the white advantage is really that big.
On 7...e4 8. Ne2 with the plan Nf4 and Bc4 would be good for White.
Black can't deny f4 to the white knight with 8...g5?! because of 9. Ng3
Nf6 10. Qa4 (plan Bc4) 10...Be6 11. Bb5 0-0 12. Bxc6 bxc6 and Black has
severe pawn weaknesses (c6, e4, g5) and also is weak on the black
squares (c5, e5).
> 8.dxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Rxd1 Be6 10.a3 0-0 11.Nf3 Nd5 12.Rc1
> The computer liked 12.Bb5 better 12...Rfe8?! Better was
> 12...Rfd8.
I like Rfe8 better because it creates threats against e5 which Rfd8 doesn't.
> 13.Bb5 Bd7 Now I'm threatening 14...Nxc3 15.Rxc3 Nxe5.
> Yermolinsky spent a lot of time on this move before finally deciding to give
> up his bishop for my knight. 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.0-0 Rac8 I really wanted to
> play 15...Nxc3 16.Rxc3 Bxf3 17.gxf3 but 17...Rxe5 allows White to gain
> access to my back rank with 18.Rxc6. And if 17...c6 instead, 18.Rb3 b5
> 19.Rc3 gives White the edge.
Instead of 18...b5 18....b6 is better. White can improve with 18. Rd1
Rxe5 19. Rd7 Rb5 20. Rcd3 g6 21. b3 with a very good position. At least
material would be equal again.
> 16.Rfd1 h6 Now 16...Nxc3 17.Rxc3 Bxf3 18.gxf3
> Rxe5 doesn't work due to 19.Rxc7! 17.Bd4 a6 18.b3 Bd7 19.Nd2 b6
> 20.Nc4 -44.min 20...Be6 -43.min 21.f3 Re7 22.Kf2! Begining to bring his King
> to the centre for the end game. 22...Rd7 23.e4 Ne7
Black here had an interesting tactic with 23...Rcd8! 24. exd5 Rxd5 25.
Nd6! (bad is 25. Ke3 c5 26. Nd6 cxd4+ 27. Ke4 (27. Rxd4 Rxe5+) 27...Ra5
and both queenside pawns are hanging; after 25. f4 Rxd4 26. Rxd4 Rxd4
27. Ke3 Rd7 Black has the pawn back) 25...cxd6 26. Bxb6 Rxd1 27. Rxd1
Rb8 28. Rxd6 Bxb3 29. Ba7 Rb5 30. Rxa6 Rxe5. Although White has kept his
pawn he has to look out for Black building fortresses in this simplified
position with bishops of different coulours. Black may be able to offer
rook trades because without rooks this may be not winnable.
> 24.Be3 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 b5
> 26.Na5 c5 27.Rd6 c4 28.bxc4 bxc4 29.f4 c3 30.f5 -70.min 30...Ba2 -.54min
30...Bxf5 31. exf5 Nxf5 with the idea to eliminate the dark bishop is
refuted by 32. Rc6.
> 31.Rxa6 c2 32.Bc1 Rd8?!
32...Rc5 wants to keep the white knight in jail. White gets it out after
33. Ke3 Rxe5 34. Kd3 Rc5 35. Ra7 Nc8 (35...Nc6 36. Nxc6; 35...Kf8 36.
Nb7 Rc6 (36...Rc7? 37. Ra8+) 37. Ra5 Ke8 38. Nc5) 36. Ra8 Kf8 37. Rb8
Ke7 (37...Ke8 38. Rb2 Bd5!? 39. exd5 Rxd5+ 40. Kxc2 Rxa5 +-) 38. Rb2 Bb1
39. Rb7+ Ke8 40. Nb3.
> 33.Rd6 Rb8 Here Yermolinshki spent over 30 minutes
> thinking befor playing 34.Nc6 Nxc6 35.Rxc6 Bb3 36.Ke3 Rb5 37.Rc8+ Kh7 38.Kd4
> Ba4 39.Rc4 Rb1
39...Bb3 40. Rb4. From here it is easy.
> 40.Rxa4 -91.min 40...Rxc1 -.68min 41.Kd3 Rg1 42.Kxc2 Rxg2+
> 43.Kd3 Rxh2 44.Ra7 h5 45.Rxf7 Rh3+ 46.Kd4 Rxa3 47.f6!! Rg3 48.e6 Kg8 49.Rd7
> gxf6 50.Rd8+ White -95.min, Black -75.min [ Here I resigned in lew of
> 50.Rd8+ Kh7 51.e7 Rg1 52.e8Q Rd1+ 53.Ke3 Rxd8 54.Qxd8 Kg6 55.Qe8+ Kg5 56.Qh8
> h4 57.Kd4 Kg4 58.Kd5 h3 59.Ke6 Kg3 60.Qxh3+ Kxh3 61.Kxf6] 1-0
Claus-Juergen
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2005 09:44:09
From: Norman Mielke
Subject: Re: My first GM game: please analysis (Tschigorin Defense)
|
Not 12. Bf6 ? Qf6 !
[Event "106th US Open"]
[Site "Phoenix, Arizona"]
[Date "2005.08.06"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Yermolinsky, Alex"]
[Black "Lacrimosa, Leopold"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "2622"]
[BlackElo "1759"]
[Annotator "Mielke,Norman"]
[PlyCount "99"]
[EventDate "2005.08.06"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. e3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 (7.
bxc3 Nf6 8. f3 O-O 9. c4 Qd6 10. d5 Ne7 11. Ne2 Nd7 12. Nc3 Nc5 13. Nb5
Qd8 14.
Bb4 b6 15. Be2 Nf5 16. Kf2 a6 17. Bxc5 bxc5 18. Nc3 Qg5 19. Qc1 Nd6 20.
h4 Qe7
21. Qa3 f5 22. Qxc5 f4 23. e4 Bd7 24. Rab1 Rfc8 25. Qa5 c5 26. Ke1 Be8
(26...
Bb5 $3) 27. Kd2 g5 28. hxg5 Qxg5 29. Qb6 Rd8 30. Qxc5 Bg6 31. Qf2 Qe7 32. c5
Nb5 33. Bxb5 axb5 34. Rxb5 Ra3 35. Qh4 Qc7 36. Rb6 Rd7 37. Rxg6+ {
1-0 Kasparov,G-Mielke,N/Simultan Berlin 2004}) 7... Nge7 (7... exd4 8.
Ne2 Nf6
$1 9. Nxd4 O-O $1 10. Nb5 Qg5 11. Nxc7 Bg4 12. Bxf6 $2 Qxf6 13. Qxg4
Qxb2 14.
Rd1 Qc3+ 15. Ke2 Ne5 16. Qe4 Qxc7 17. f4 Ng4 18. Qf3 Qc4+ 19. Ke1 Qc3+
20. Ke2
Nxe3 21. Rd3 Qc2+ 22. Kxe3 Rfe8+ {0:1, von Alvensleben - Bronznik; Die
Tschigorin-Verteidigung, IM Valeri Bronznik, 2001.}) 8. dxe5 Qxd1+ 9.
Rxd1 Be6
10. a3 O-O 11. Nf3 Nd5 12. Rc1 Rfe8 13. Bb5 Bd7 14. Bxc6 Bxc6 15. O-O
Rac8 16.
Rfd1 h6 17. Bd4 a6 18. b3 Bd7 19. Nd2 b6 20. Nc4 Be6 21. f3 Re7 22. Kf2
Rd7 23.
e4 Ne7 24. Be3 Rxd1 25. Rxd1 b5 26. Na5 c5 27. Rd6 c4 28. bxc4 bxc4 29.
f4 c3
30. f5 Ba2 31. Rxa6 c2 32. Bc1 Rd8 33. Rd6 Rb8 34. Nc6 Nxc6 35. Rxc6 Bb3 36.
Ke3 Rb5 37. Rc8+ Kh7 38. Kd4 Ba4 39. Rc4 Rb1 40. Rxa4 Rxc1 41. Kd3 Rg1
42. Kxc2
Rxg2+ 43. Kd3 Rxh2 44. Ra7 h5 45. Rxf7 Rh3+ 46. Kd4 Rxa3 47. f6 Rg3 48.
e6 Kg8
49. Rd7 gxf6 50. Rd8+ 1-0
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 01:05:16
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: My first GM game: please analysis (Tschigorin Defense)
|
Norman Mielke wrote:
> Not 12. Bf6 ? Qf6 !
Hello Norman,
I overlooked this. Thank you for pointing out this refutation. So maybe
Nb5 deserves its bad reputation.
Greetings
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2005 08:56:27
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: My first GM game: please analysis (Tschigorin Defense)
|
In <[email protected] >, Claus-J�rgen Heigl wrote:
> Norman Mielke wrote:
>> Not 12. Bf6 ? Qf6 !
>
> Hello Norman,
> I overlooked this. Thank you for pointing out this refutation.
> So maybe Nb5 deserves its bad reputation.
> Claus-Juergen
Sorry I come so late to this thread! I play the Tschigorin
as Black, and I perhaps shouldn't say this, but after:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. cd5 Qxd5 4. e3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4
6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 ed4 8. Ne2 Nf6 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Nb5 Qg5!
the line I'm afraid of is:
11. h4! Qh6! 12. Nxc7 Bg4 13. Qb3 Rad8 14. Qxb7
(14. Bc4 Ne4 idea ..Rd7 and ... Rfd8)
14... Ne4 15. Bb5
(15. Bc4?! Rd7! 16. Bd5 Rfd8 with advantage)
15... Bd7
and now:
16. Be2!? Qg6 17. Bf3 Nc5 18. Qb5 Nb4! 19. Qc4 Nc2+ 20. Ke2 Nxa1 21. Rxa1
("unclear" (Bronznik) and it's a tightrope, very sharp: )
21... Ne6!
(21... Qc2+? 22. Kf1 Nd3 23. Be2 +-
or 21... Na4 22. Bb4 Qf6 23. Kf1 +=)
22. Nd5 Rfe8 23. Qb4
(23. Kf1?! Rc8 24. Qg4 Nf8 =)
23... Rc8! 24. Rc1
(24. Ne7+? Rxe7 25. Qxe7 Bb5+ 26. Ke1 Qd3
27. Rd1 Qf1+ 28. Kd2 Qxf2+ 29. Kc1 Qxe3+)
24... Nc5! 25. Nf4
(25. Kf1 Qa6+ 26. Be2 Qxa2)
25... Qa6+ 26. Ke1 Ne4! 27. Bxe4
(or 27. Qd4 Nxc3 28. Nh5 (28. Rxc3 Rxc3 29. bxc3 Bf5 =)
28... Qg6 29. Qxd7 Rcd8 is still unclear)
27... Rc4 28. Qb7 Qxb7 29. Bxb7 Rxf4 30. Rd1 Re7 31. Bc8 Be8
and White is better :-(
I'm glad to hear that 10. Nb5 has a bad reputation,
'cause I'm actually not looking forward to meeting it ...
Improvements for Black gratefully accepted, Regards, Peter
--
TAS/DPIWE/CIT/Servers hbt/lnd/l8 6233 3061 http://www.pjb.com.au
And how sweet a story it is, when you hear Charley Parker tell it
- Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2005 11:38:15
From: Norman Mielke
Subject: Re: My first GM game: please analysis (Tschigorin Defense)
|
Hi Peter,
what do you think about 14. .. Rd6 ?
[Event "IV Open"]
[Site "Dos Hermanas ESP"]
[Date "2004.03.28"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Ivanov, Jordan"]
[Black "Moreno Carnero, Javier"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "2406"]
[BlackElo "2525"]
[Annotator "Mielke"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2004.03.25"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. e3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3
exd4 8.
Ne2 Nf6 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Nb5 Qg5 11. h4 Qh6 12. Nxc7 Bg4 13. Qb3 Rad8 14.
Qxb7
Rd6 15. Bc4 (15. Nb5 Re6 16. Bc4 Rxe3+ 17. fxe3 Qxe3+ 18. Kf1 Qf4+ 19.
Kg1 Qxc4
) 15... Rb8 16. Qa6 Rbd8 17. Bb3 Nd4 18. Qxd6 Rxd6 19. Bxd4 Rxd4 20.
exd4 Qf4
21. Nd5 Nxd5 22. Bxd5 Qxd4 23. Bb3 Qd3 24. Bd1 Qe4+ 25. Kf1 Qd3+ 26. Ke1
h5 27.
f3 Qe3+ 28. Be2 Bf5 29. Rd1 g6 30. Rd2 Kg7 31. Kd1 Qe6 32. a3 Qb3+ 33.
Ke1 Qe3
34. Kd1 a5 35. Bc4 Qc5 36. Ba2 Qb5 37. Kc1 Qc6+ 38. Kd1 Qb5 39. Kc1 Qe5
40. Bb1
Qc5+ 41. Bc2 Qc4 42. Rhd1 a4 43. Kb1 Bxc2+ 44. Rxc2 Qxh4 45. Rd7 Qe1+
46. Rc1
Qe2 47. Rcc7 Kg8 48. Rxf7 Qd1+ 49. Ka2 Qd5+ 1/2-1/2
Regards,
Norman
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2005 09:13:18
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: My first GM game: please analysis (Tschigorin Defense)
|
In article <[email protected] >, Norman Mielke wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> what do you think about 14. .. Rd6 ?
Aha... :-)
I think it leads to a draw. Bronznik doesn't mention it in his 2001
book. I expect I'll adopt it because that's what I'd play in the
similar line without 11. h4 Qh6 ... That extra move favours Black
in the 15. Nb5 Re6 16. Nd4? Rxe3+ variation, but helps White in the
15. Nb5 Re6 16. Bc4 Rxe3+ variation. Slightly deepening the analysis:
[Event "IV Open"]
[Site "Dos Hermanas ESP"]
[Date "2004.03.28"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Ivanov, Jordan"]
[Black "Moreno Carnero, Javier"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "2406"]
[BlackElo "2525"]
[Annotator "Mielke, Peter Billam"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2004.03.25"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. e3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4
6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 exd4 8. Ne2 Nf6 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Nb5 Qg5
11. h4 Qh6 12. Nxc7 Bg4 13. Qb3 Rad8 14. Qxb7 Rd6 15. Bc4
{ 15. Nb5 Re6 16. Bc4
( 16. Nd4? Rxe3+ 17. fe3 Qxe3+ 18. Ne2 Ne4 19. Qxc6 Rd8 20. Qxe4
Qxe4 21. Rh2 Qe3 22. g3 Bxe2 23. Rxe2 Qxg3+ 24. Rf2 Re8+
25. Be2 Qg1+ 26. Rf1 Qh2 27. Rf2 Qh1+ 28. Rf1 Qxh4+ -/+)
16... Rxe3+ 17. fxe3 Qxe3+ 18. Kf1 Qf4+ 19. Kg1 Qxc4 20. Nxa7
( or 20. Bxf6 gf6 21. Nc3 Qd4+ 22. Kh2 Qf4+ 1/2-1/2)
20... Qc5+ 21. Kh2 Qd6+ 1/2-1/2 }
15... Rb8 16. Qa6 Rbd8 17. Bb3
{ 17. O-O!? Qxh4 18. Qa4 Qg5 (18... Ne4? 19. Bxf7+ Kxf7 20. Qxe4 Rh6 21. f3 +-)
19. Bxf6 Rxf6 20. Bd5 Ne7 21. Be4 (21. f4 Qh5)
21... Rh6 22. Rac1 Qh5 23. f3 Qh1+ 24. Kf2 Qh4+ 1/2-1/2 (25. Ke2? Nf5 -+) }
17... Nd4 18. Qxd6 Rxd6 19. Bxd4 Rxd4 20. exd4 Qf4 21. Nd5 Nxd5
22. Bxd5 Qxd4 23. Bb3
( 23. Ba8 Qb4+ 24. Kf1 Qxb2 25. Re1 Kf8 26. Bc6 Be6 27. a4 a6 -/+ )
23... Qd3
( 23... Qe5+ 24. Kf1 Qe2+ 25. Kg1 h5 26. Rc1 Qxb2 =/+ )
24. Bd1 Qe4+ 25. Kf1 Qd3+ 26. Ke1 h5 27. f3 Qe3+ 28. Be2 Bf5
29. Rd1 g6 30. Rd2 Kg7 31. Kd1 Qe6 32. a3 Qb3+ 33. Ke1 Qe3 34. Kd1 a5
35. Bc4 Qc5 36. Ba2 Qb5 37. Kc1 Qc6+ 38. Kd1 Qb5 39. Kc1 Qe5 40. Bb1 Qc5+
41. Bc2 Qc4 42. Rhd1 a4 43. Kb1 Bxc2+ 44. Rxc2 Qxh4 45. Rd7 Qe1+
46. Rc1 Qe2 47. Rcc7 Kg8 48. Rxf7 Qd1+ 49. Ka2 Qd5+ 1/2-1/2
Thanks for that, Regards, Peter
--
TAS/DPIWE/CIT/Servers hbt/lnd/l8 6233 3061 http://www.pjb.com.au
And how sweet a story it is, when you hear Charley Parker tell it
- Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
|
| | |
Date: 07 Aug 2005 10:34:45
From: Leopold
Subject: Re: My first GM game: please analysis (Tschigorin Defense)
|
Thank You Claus-Jurgen for your fine analysis. I added them to my notes.
Leopold
"Claus-J�rgen Heigl" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leopold wrote:
>> Please help me with analysis of my game. You will find the game in PGN
>> and then with my notes. Thank you all in advance.
>
>> (20) Yermolinsky,A (2622) - Lacrimosa,L (1759) [D07]
>> 106th US Open Phoenix, Arizona (1), 06.08.2005
>> [Lacrimosa, Leopold]
>
>> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3!?
>> Nge7?! A mistake. Probable due to nervous since it was my very first
>> tournament game against a GM. 7...exd4 8.Ne2 Bg4 9.Bxd4 0-0-0! gives
>> Black an edge. White
>> can improve with 9.f3 allowing Black a chance at a doubious sacrifice
>> with 9...Bxf3?! 10.gxf3 Qxf3. But even on this Black can avoid all
>> complacations with 8...Nf6! [ I've played 7...e4 in blitz games and have
>> had some interesting positions.]
>
> The game move loses a pawn, but I'm not convinced of a Black advantage in
> the variations you give.
>
> 7...exd4 8. Ne2 Bg4 9. Bxd4 0-0-0 10. f3 Qa5+ (10...Be6 11. Qa4 Nxd4 12.
> Nxd4 Kb8 13. Be2 Nf6 14. Qb5 =) 11. Kf2 Nxd4 (11...Nf6!? 12. Qe1! (12.
> fxg4 Nxg4+ 13. Kg1 Nxe3! 14. Qc1 Nxf1 15. Bc3 Qc5+ 16. Kxf1 Rhe8 17. Qf4
> f6 18. Qf2 Qc4 19. Re1 Ne5 and Black has more than enough compensation 20.
> Qxa7 Nd3 21. Rd1 Rxe2! wins) 12...Qf5 13. Kg1 Bh5 14. Rc1 unclear/=) 12.
> Nxd4 Be6 13. Qc2 =
>
> But it seems like everybody is playing 9. f3 anyway, and the sacrifice
> 9...Bxf3 10. gxf3 Qxf3 11. Bxd4! Nxd4 12. Qxd4 Qxh1 13. Qxg7 0-0-0 14.
> Qxh8 Qxh2 15. Qg7 Qh4+ 16. Qg3 Qb4+ 17. Kf2 Nf6 18. Bg2 isn't very
> promising. Black can get a third pawn for the piece, but the Black pawns
> are scattered and the white pieces are developing a lot of activity.
>
> Indeed 8...Bg4 doesn't look so good, so 8...Nf6 probably is a better move.
> After 9. Nxd4 0-0 10. Nb5 has a bad track record, but 10...Qg5 11. Nxc7
> Bg4 (which is played 100% of the time, but Black should seriously consider
> 11...Rd8 or 11...Rb8) 12. Bxf6! gxf6 13. Qd5 puts the black strategy into
> question. White has a solid pawn more and the white knight will get out by
> d5 or b5. 10...Bg4 is a nice try but after 11. Nxc7 Qxd1 (11...Qh5 12. Qb3
> Rab8 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Qb5 +/-) 12. Rxd1 Rac8 13. f3 Rxc7 14. Bxf6 gxf6
> (after 14...Be6 15. Bc3 Bxa2 White should have a definite advantage
> because of the bishops pair) 15. fxg4 Re8 16. Be2 (16. Kf2 Ne5, White
> can't hold the pawn anyway) 16...Rxe3 17. Kf2 Rce7 18. Rd2 White is
> perhaps better. Shredder rates this as almost +1.00 for White but I'm not
> sure if the white advantage is really that big.
>
> On 7...e4 8. Ne2 with the plan Nf4 and Bc4 would be good for White. Black
> can't deny f4 to the white knight with 8...g5?! because of 9. Ng3 Nf6 10.
> Qa4 (plan Bc4) 10...Be6 11. Bb5 0-0 12. Bxc6 bxc6 and Black has severe
> pawn weaknesses (c6, e4, g5) and also is weak on the black squares (c5,
> e5).
>
>> 8.dxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Rxd1 Be6 10.a3 0-0 11.Nf3 Nd5 12.Rc1
>> The computer liked 12.Bb5 better 12...Rfe8?! Better was 12...Rfd8.
>
> I like Rfe8 better because it creates threats against e5 which Rfd8
> doesn't.
>
>> 13.Bb5 Bd7 Now I'm threatening 14...Nxc3 15.Rxc3 Nxe5. Yermolinsky spent
>> a lot of time on this move before finally deciding to give up his bishop
>> for my knight. 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.0-0 Rac8 I really wanted to play 15...Nxc3
>> 16.Rxc3 Bxf3 17.gxf3 but 17...Rxe5 allows White to gain access to my back
>> rank with 18.Rxc6. And if 17...c6 instead, 18.Rb3 b5 19.Rc3 gives White
>> the edge.
>
> Instead of 18...b5 18....b6 is better. White can improve with 18. Rd1 Rxe5
> 19. Rd7 Rb5 20. Rcd3 g6 21. b3 with a very good position. At least
> material would be equal again.
>
>> 16.Rfd1 h6 Now 16...Nxc3 17.Rxc3 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Rxe5 doesn't work due to
>> 19.Rxc7! 17.Bd4 a6 18.b3 Bd7 19.Nd2 b6 20.Nc4 -44.min 20...Be6 -43.min
>> 21.f3 Re7 22.Kf2! Begining to bring his King to the centre for the end
>> game. 22...Rd7 23.e4 Ne7
>
> Black here had an interesting tactic with 23...Rcd8! 24. exd5 Rxd5 25.
> Nd6! (bad is 25. Ke3 c5 26. Nd6 cxd4+ 27. Ke4 (27. Rxd4 Rxe5+) 27...Ra5
> and both queenside pawns are hanging; after 25. f4 Rxd4 26. Rxd4 Rxd4 27.
> Ke3 Rd7 Black has the pawn back) 25...cxd6 26. Bxb6 Rxd1 27. Rxd1 Rb8 28.
> Rxd6 Bxb3 29. Ba7 Rb5 30. Rxa6 Rxe5. Although White has kept his pawn he
> has to look out for Black building fortresses in this simplified position
> with bishops of different coulours. Black may be able to offer rook trades
> because without rooks this may be not winnable.
>
>> 24.Be3 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 b5 26.Na5 c5 27.Rd6 c4 28.bxc4 bxc4 29.f4 c3
>> 30.f5 -70.min 30...Ba2 -.54min
>
> 30...Bxf5 31. exf5 Nxf5 with the idea to eliminate the dark bishop is
> refuted by 32. Rc6.
>
>> 31.Rxa6 c2 32.Bc1 Rd8?!
>
> 32...Rc5 wants to keep the white knight in jail. White gets it out after
> 33. Ke3 Rxe5 34. Kd3 Rc5 35. Ra7 Nc8 (35...Nc6 36. Nxc6; 35...Kf8 36. Nb7
> Rc6 (36...Rc7? 37. Ra8+) 37. Ra5 Ke8 38. Nc5) 36. Ra8 Kf8 37. Rb8 Ke7
> (37...Ke8 38. Rb2 Bd5!? 39. exd5 Rxd5+ 40. Kxc2 Rxa5 +-) 38. Rb2 Bb1 39.
> Rb7+ Ke8 40. Nb3.
>
>> 33.Rd6 Rb8 Here Yermolinshki spent over 30 minutes thinking befor playing
>> 34.Nc6 Nxc6 35.Rxc6 Bb3 36.Ke3 Rb5 37.Rc8+ Kh7 38.Kd4 Ba4 39.Rc4 Rb1
>
> 39...Bb3 40. Rb4. From here it is easy.
>
>> 40.Rxa4 -91.min 40...Rxc1 -.68min 41.Kd3 Rg1 42.Kxc2 Rxg2+ 43.Kd3 Rxh2
>> 44.Ra7 h5 45.Rxf7 Rh3+ 46.Kd4 Rxa3 47.f6!! Rg3 48.e6 Kg8 49.Rd7 gxf6
>> 50.Rd8+ White -95.min, Black -75.min [ Here I resigned in lew of 50.Rd8+
>> Kh7 51.e7 Rg1 52.e8Q Rd1+ 53.Ke3 Rxd8 54.Qxd8 Kg6 55.Qe8+ Kg5 56.Qh8 h4
>> 57.Kd4 Kg4 58.Kd5 h3 59.Ke6 Kg3 60.Qxh3+ Kxh3 61.Kxf6] 1-0
>
> Claus-Juergen
>
|
|
