Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Vortex, September 2013, Round 6 "Sicilian grudge match, fiery attack, but not enough"

Vortex September 2013, Round 6: Reed v Holmgren (0-1)
G/30, d5, lose - White with Sicilian Grand Prix Attack, exciting attack, but not enough oomph to get the point, and this was a grudge match from Vortex Round 1 in June.

Grudge match. Friendly grudge match, but serious chess nonetheless. Holmgren is a great guy, strong chess player, and out for chess blood! The reason is that this past summer, we played in an earlier Vortex event, and that was my first time back to OTB chess with that crew in a while. Maybe he had his guard down, not sure. In fact once my attack got going, he was a bit rattled, and made an illegal move, which I didn't catch either! I noted that "gee I didn't see that move coming", and afterwards I realized why. It wasn't a legal move.
In any case, somehow I managed to get a strong attack going, right down the e/f files, including sac'ing a piece. Fun for me but not for him. Here is a link to the blog where I wrote about it earlier. Note there are two game viewers because of the illegal move creating two game fragments...
As you can see in the picture below from that same event, it started as a Closed Sicilian. We are the board closest to the camera, and I am on the right wearing my MetroWest CC sweatshirt.MetroWest CC website is here.
The result of this game from last June was mate on White's 42nd move, with Black's King in the center. Not pretty, and Holmgren does not want to repeat that scenario. 
If you look at the game from last June, you will see that White slowly developed into a Grand Prix style attack. In the grudge match game from September, White is trying to better learn the Grand Prix SIcilian, and is developing with 3.f4 straight away.
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.f4 Bg7 4.nf3 Nc6 5.Bc4 e6 6.O-O Nge7 7.e5 d5 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.d3 all book, although my knowledge of the Alberts' lines I'm trying to follow got mixed up as early as move 5, when White's recommended move is 5.Bb5. Later on move 11 I reposition the Bishop on b5 so perhaps this cost a move. The fact that we followed "book" till move 9 only means we were both finding "reasonable" moves, but does not indicate that I (at least) knew what the moves meant in terms of what is appropriate thereafter, typical plans, etc.

In my head I wanted to drive the f pawn down the f file, but I kept thinking it was missing it's e pawn companion. However, in many Closed Sicilian games, the f pawn is missing it's e pawn companion, and sometimes is joined by the g pawn. In my head I usually do not think of advancing the g pawn, but dacster13 (on would say "Harvey, you are unnecessarily discounting moves before you critically analyze them!" (paraphrase)... and he is right.
In any case, my head is a jumble! Which sequence of operations? Below is a depiction of all the possibilities I am considering... Also keep in mind I am trying my best for a repeat performance so I'm eating up clock time too...
Back to the game... 9...b6 10.Ne4 Qd7 11.Bb5 (was 5.Bc4 a waste?) Bb7 12.Ne5 Qc7 13.Ng4, bringing forces closer, O-O 14.Ngf6+ Kh8 15.Rf3 Nd4 16.Rh3

This is the "big buildup". This is how Magnus Carlsen wins. Actually Carlsen wins from almost any type of position according to Anand, lol.

Seriously, the buildup in the game has been increasing for a while, and we are at a "critica; position" where White could come crashing through, or Black could defend and White's attack is repelled... The lines of attack below look similar to what was anticipated earlier above. So far so good. Note that White has four pieces participating. His Queenside Bishop and Rook are not participating. This may be an issue as well.
First, how will Black defend? Is White's attack a big bust? The most obvious move for Black is 16...h6 or 16...h5. If 16...h5, then White can consider a Rook sac with 17.Rxh5+ gxh5 18.Qxh5+ Bh6 19.Qxh6# and White is better, lol. With this mate threat looming over Black, it is easy to see that Black will want to defuse the situation and trade pieces with White, and he chose 16.Bxf6?? Houdini gives this two question marks. Why? Because after recapture with 17.Nxf6 as in the game, White has a very strong attack. Instead 16...h6, and Black can hold. Maybe Black is even better, considering how uncoordinated most of White's pieces are.

Then Black has another choice under duress, again. This time  17...h5 holds White attack back a little, but instead, Black wants to consider trading, and plays 17...Kg7?? Again Houdini gives this two question marks because this helps White's attack.

Now it is White's turn. White knows there is a strong attack here, and White knows that this is the moment. White can choose to continue and strengthen the attack and win (then all those other uncoordinated pieces don't matter), or... White could pull back, play it safe and lose the game due to attrition.
What are White's candidate moves? 
  • 18.Nxh7, as in the game, captures a pawn, maintains attack
  • 18.Rxh7, captures a pawn lose the Knight
  • 18.Qg4, bring up a strong piece, lose the Knight
  • Gee, what do I do with my Bishop which is en prise? What about my undeveloped Bishop? My undeveloped Rook?
The point is that White needs to go all out, or the "positional debt" built up over the last few moves will take its toll. How do I decide which move to make? How should I make the decision? Based on accruing material? Or based on activity, threats, and mate? Well, let's see... if I focus on my en prise Bishop which isn't and can't in the near future do anything, that is materialistic, and clearly a wasted move to boot. Rejected. If I bring up the Queen with 18.Qg4, I lose a Knight before I have a chance to protect it. Rejected. If I play 18.Rxh7+ then the King takes the Knight, lose material. Rejected. That leaves 18.Nxh7 which I played, to make a safe move. I was thinking materially. But with 18.Nxh7 Rh8 White is busted due to simple tactics. Yes, we were both heading into a time scramble, but there is no excuse for missing such a simple tactic. And if I do nothing I lose the Bishop on b5 anyway, and the long attrition starts.

What I missed is that 18.Rxh7 actually works, not due to material gain, but because it forces the Black King out into the open, as in 18.Rxh7+ Kxf6 19.Qg4, now the Queen move is more threatening Ne2+ trying for anything to slow down the attack. 20.Kh1 e5 perhaps 21.Qxe2 Ke6 22.Bd2, develop the Rook a6, make threats 23.Bc4+ Kd7 24.fxe4 and White continues to encroach and attack.

In stark contrast to the above, White played 18.Nxh7 Nxb5, also thinking materialistic, and then 19.f5 instead of 19.Nxf8 trying to get material back now that the attack is fizzling. The rest is attrition and time scramble, 19...Nxf5 20.Bg5 Rh8 21.Bf6+ Kg8 22.Bxh8 Kxh8 23.Nf6 Kg7 and mercfully time ran out.

The big takeaway in this whole tournament that I need to try and fully understand the position I am in, and then not to artificially constrain choices that I allow myself. Why should I dismiss 18.Rxh7 immediately because it "loses a piece", when in reality it was the only move that "wins the game". Both can be true. Losing material might mean losing, might mean winning, you need to fully consider and evaluate.

Maybe if I played chess on a giant chess board, I could learn to think big and out of the box?
Maybe if I learned from Magnus Carlsen, I could learn to think big and out of the box?

Quote from Magnus Carlsen:
"Self-confidence is very important. If you don’t think you can win, you will take cowardly decisions in the crucial moments, out of sheer respect for your opponent. You see the opportunity but also greater limitations than you should. I have always believed in what I do on the chessboard, even when I had no objective reason to. It is better to overestimate your prospects than underestimate them."

Which is what dacster13 ( is always telling me (above)...


No comments:

Post a Comment