| |
Main
Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:37:36
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Was this game drawable?
|
I played a game on ICC which I lost on time, although I think I would
have lost anyway. That said, my opponent was short of time too.
I suspect 7...bxc3 was not a good idea. The in the middle of the game I
dropped a bishop at 21.Qxe4, which rather screwed me up. But I thought
of resigning, but played on. I suspect the endgame would have been lost,
but I did wonder about the chances of two bishops vs one, IF I could
have got even trades from the pawns we both had, which I admit is
probably unlikely.
[Event "ICC 15 12"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2006.08.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "g8wrb"]
[Black "Mieszko"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White forfeits on time"]
[WhiteElo "1268"]
[BlackElo "1421"]
[Opening "French defense"]
[ECO "C01"]
[NIC "FR.01"]
[Time "10:43:29"]
[TimeControl "900+12"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 b6 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qe2 Nf6 6. e5 Nd5 7. Bd2 Nxc3 8.
bxc3 Be7 9. Rb1 d6 10. c4 O-O 11. Qe3 h6 12. Bd3 dxe5 13. Qxe5 Bf6 14. Qe3
Nc6 15. Be4 Rb8 16. d5 exd5 17. cxd5 Ne5 18. Qb3 Nxf3+ 19. Qxf3 Re8 20. c4
Qe7 21. O-O Qxe4 22. Qxe4 Rxe4 23. Rbc1 Ba6 24. f3 Rxc4 25. Kh1 Rxc1 26.
Rxc1 Rc8 27. Bf4 Rd8 28. Rxc7 Rxd5 29. h3 Bc4 30. Rxa7 Ra5 31. Rxa5 bxa5 32.
a3 Bb2 {White forfeits on time} 0-1
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:13:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Was this game drawable?
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> [Opening "French defense"]
> [ECO "C01"]
>
> 1. e4 e6 2. d4 b6 {...}
Random, unimportant point but I think that game would be better
classified as Owen's defence (B00) by transposition. Black doesn't
play an early ...d5 so the game doesn't develop along French lines.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mentholated Newspaper (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a daily broadsheet but it's
invigorating!
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:45:50
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Was this game drawable?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> What else? You can't prevent doubled pawns at this point. It's either
> 7.bxc3 or 7.Bxc3 Bxc3 8.bxc3. You had to react to the pin immediately
> to avoid this... eg, 5.e5 / 6.a3 and Black would have to sacrifice his
> bishop pair to double your pawns.
And as Botvinnik, among others, showed, such doubled pawns can actually
be quite stabilizing and give white the time to launch a k-side attack.
The Vienna game is another analogous example.
But that is, as "forest" has noted, neither here nor there. If you are
going to hang a bishop for nothing, you are essentially playing, at
your level, 200 points below what you could be at, if you paid
attention to elementary tactics. I don't think it can be overemphasized
that you need to fix that first.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:24:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Was this game drawable?
|
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> >
> >>I mean 7.bxc3. (I was white).
> But I think Bxc3 would have been better. At least Black would have lost
> his bishop pair if choosing to give me doubled pawns. This way, he kept
> his bishop pair and I got doubled pawns.
After 7.Bxc3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 you also lose your bishop pair, so you're no
better. With less material on the board, you're perhaps slightly worse.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:30:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Was this game drawable?
|
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> I played a game on ICC which I lost on time, although I think I would
> have lost anyway. That said, my opponent was short of time too.
I agree with James, that hanging a bishop is where you lost this game.
When players hang pieces, or even pawns, positional considerations
become less important.
Here's a game I played as Black yesterday. I doubled my pawns. I forgot
to undouble my panws. In the end, it didn't matter, because my opponent
hung a pawn in a tense position!
>>>>>
1. c4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qd2 Bb4 5. Nc3 Qf6 6. e3 Bxc3 7.
bxc3 Nge7 8. Bb2 Qd6 9. Qxd6 cxd6 10. Ne2 b6 11. Nd4 Ba6 12. Bd3 Ne5
13. Be2 Bxc4 14. Bxc4 Nxc4 15. Rb1 Nxb2 16. Rxb2 O-O 17. Nb5 Rfc8 18.
O-O Rc5 19. Rc1 Nc8 20. a4 a6 21. Nd4 g6 22. h3 Na7 23. Rcc2 Rac8 24.
Rb3 b5 25. axb5 Nxb5 26. Ne2 a5 27. Nd4 Nxc3 28. Kf1 Nd5 29. Rxc5 Rxc5
30. Nb5 a4 31. Rb1 Nc3 32. Nxc3 Rxc3 33. Ra1 a3 34. Ke2 Rc2+ 35. Kf3 a2
36. g4 d5 37. Kg3 Kf8 38. f3 Ke7 39. Kf4 Kd6 40. e4 Kc5 41. exd5 Kxd5
42. Ke3 Kc4 43. h4 Kc3 44. h5 gxh5 45. gxh5 Kb2 46. Rh1 a1=Q 47. Rxa1
Kxa1 48. Kf4 Rc5 49. Kg4 d5 50. f4 d4 51. f5 d3 52. Kg5 d2 53. Kf6 Rc7
54. h6 d1=Q 55. Kg7 Qg4+ 56. Kxh7 f6+ 57. Kh8 Qa4 58. Kg8 Qa8# 0-1
This was an interesting game, with no major blunders. After 3...Nc6,
White is playing a reverse Scandinavian w/ an extra c4.
8...Qd6 was a positional misevaluation. I worried White would attack my
cramped position, and accepted doubled pawns to stop him.
23...Rc8 was a tactical (process) error. If White were alert he would
have played 24.Rxb6, winning a pawn.
29...Rxc5 was good, but 29...dxc5 was better, undoubling my pawns. I
need to keep looking even after finding a good move.
>>>>>
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:05:16
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Was this game drawable?
|
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> I suspect 7...bxc3 was not a good idea.
What else? You can't prevent doubled pawns at this point. It's either
7.bxc3 or 7.Bxc3 Bxc3 8.bxc3. You had to react to the pin immediately
to avoid this... eg, 5.e5 / 6.a3 and Black would have to sacrifice his
bishop pair to double your pawns.
> The in the middle of the game I dropped a bishop at 21.Qxe4, which rather screwed me up. But I thought
Yes, pins should be reacted to immediately. After 19...Re8 20.O-O your
position would have been fine.
> of resigning, but played on. I suspect the endgame would have been lost,
> but I did wonder about the chances of two bishops vs one,
Anything's possible, but this is unlikely. 1. You're a bishop down, 2.
the a-pawn is isolated, 3. the d- and e-pawns are fixed on
light-colored squares, 4. Your opponent's king is safe, 5. Your king
is still vulnerable to a back-rank mate.
> IF I could have got even trades from the pawns we both had, which I admit is
> probably unlikely.
After 23.Rbc1 Ba6 you can't hold the c-pawn, and you don't even have
the option of 24.c5 (ruining his pawn structure) because your c-pawn is
pinned (again!) to your rook.
23.Rfc1 would have been a strong defense. Both your rooks and your
bishop could have worked together to defend the vital c-pawn.
Yes, K+B vs K+2B should be a draw. It would be possible--but
unlikely--to reach that position from this one.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:43:45
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Was this game drawable?
|
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> I played a game on ICC which I lost on time, although I think I would
> have lost anyway. That said, my opponent was short of time too.
>
> I suspect 7...bxc3 was not a good idea.
I mean 7.bxc3. (I was white).
Also 29...Bx4?? 30.Rxa5??
I missed the chance of getting a bishop back.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
|
