|
Chess Isn’t Baseball, but after Three Strikes You’re Still Out
by IM Timothy Taylor
It’s the last round. After this, you go home – no more games, no more chances, and if you don’t win, you have no one to kick but yourself.
We have all been there: for some there’s money on the line, for others, it’s that last desperate chance to finish the tournament with an even score —
But the last round comes to us all.
I was looking good going into the last round of the 2004 Memorial Day Classic. I had just defeated Melik Khachiyan and drawn Jack Peters. I was a half point ahead of the field, so all I needed was a draw for at worst a tie for first.
I could see that my pairing was virtually forced: I would have White against Alexandre Kretchetov. At this time my score against Kretchetov was 1 1/2-1/2, both games with White, so I felt very confident. The only way I could play someone else was if Sevillano won, but he was mired in an absolutely, totally dead drawn queen ending against Tatev Abrahamyan. In fact, I noticed as I went by, Tatev could force a draw by perpetual check. So I walked on, more or less whistling to myself, thinking of a big check, etc. …
I came back just to double check about a twenty minutes before game time – and discovered Sevillano had won!! Apparently Tatev tried to win, and so lost. It seemed as though all my certainty left me in an instant! Instead of a comfortable White against Kretchetov, by a weird pairing quirk I was going to get Black against Sevillano!
Twenty minutes to round time!!
I rushed to the bookseller and bought Anti-Sicilians, A Guide for Black ANTI-SICILIANS, A GUIDE FOR BLACK, by Dorian Rogozenko. I devoured a line against the c3 Sicilian that Sevillano always plays. I frantically memorized variations without even using a board – I sat down to play, all distraught, and this happened …
IM Enrico Sevillano - IM Timothy Taylor
Memorial Day Classic 2004
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 e6 6.cxd4 d6
Rogozenko gives 7.a3 and 7.Bc4 as White’s main lines and says, “White’s alternatives are considerably weaker” so I hadn’t looked at those in my twenty minute study!
7.Nc3
Apparently Sevillano hadn’t read the book! He whipped the novelty out without a second’s thought!
7... Nxc3 8.bxc3
I took it off, he recaptured, and I thought for a while. It seemed like a good idea at the time to develop a piece and put pressure on the center, so I played …
8…Nc6
Which I would later discover gets a big fat dubious move sign in Murray Chandler’s classic book on the c3 Sicilian: Chandler helpfully gives a game in which Minev crushes Korchnoi from this position. If I had known that, I might have looked longer!
The correct, Rogozenko approved move, is 8...Qc7 when he says, “Black is fine.” However, there are two problems with this move: one, it’s a move you have to “know” rather than find. Who is going to move the Queen out first when not a single other piece is developed? And secondly, the move is not so “fine” that White doesn’t have chances: take a look at this game: 9.Bd2 Nd7 10.Bd3!? (An interesting pawn sacrifice.) 10…dxe5 11.0–0 g6 12.Re1 Bg7 13.dxe5 0–0 14.Qe2 Nc5 15.Bc2 b6 16.Nd4 Ba6 17.Qe3 Rfd8 18.h4 Rd5 19.f4 Rad8 20.h5 Bb7 21.Qh3 Qd7 22.Rad1 f5 23.hxg6 hxg6 24.Nf3 Nd3 25.Rf1 Qe7 26.Be3 Nc5 27.Ng5 Bf8 28.Bd4 b5 29.Rd2 b4 30.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 31.Rdf2 R8d7 32.cxb4 Qxb4 33.Nxe6,1–0, Schmittdiel - Acs, Austria 2000. Yes, that is the famous Hungarian GM Peter Acs getting hammered … I wonder if he felt “fine” after the game?
9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Bd3 h6
I was worried about the classic Bishop sacrifice on h7 if I castled, but in fact the sacrifice doesn’t work: if 10...0–0 11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 12.Ng5+ Kg6 (only move) and the best I can find for White is 13.h4 (notice how all Queen attacks fail: 13.Qd3+ f5 14.g4 e5, –+; 13.Qg4 f5, –+; 13.Qf3 f6 14.Qd3+ f5, –+) and then Black scampers away while giving back a little material.
13...Kf6 14.Nh7+ Ke7 15.Nxf8 Kxf8 16.h5 Kg8 17.h6 g6 when Fritz weighs in with “slight edge to Black” which seems to be correct.
However, after Black castles, White should not speculate, but just castle himself. After 11.0-0 Bd7 12.Ng5 h6 13.Ne4 Be7 14.Bf4 Rc8 15.Rb1 Na5 White has pressure but Black is holding. This is about the best Black can do here.
It’s not so bad to get this kind of slightly worse position with Black: you can fight on with reasonable hopes of a draw, which was all I needed.
Now back to the game.
11.0–0 0–0 12.Rb1
The critical position.
We have reached a similar position to the above note, except that White essentially has an extra tempo (Rb1 is clearly more valuable than Black’s … h6). To start with, that means Black can’t develop with Bd7 as above.
So 12… Qc7 seems natural, defending b7, but White can keep up the pressure with 13.Re1 and there’s no getting around it, White is a little better: he controls more space, has a solid center, and has better development for all his pieces.
Here is the important point: if you evaluate the position correctly, you can find correct moves. So here, Black should evaluate his position just as I wrote above: White has the better, freer game, but at the same time, nothing calamitous; one can make a mental Informator symbol, and say, ok, he’s got me at +/=, but that’s not so bad. I’ll make a solid move like 12… Qc7 and stay in the game.
But I was not thinking in that calm, rational way: I was thinking that “Black is fine”, I was thinking that Sevillano had not played the best move (which is absurd, I’m sure Sevillano, who has played the c3 Sicilian all his life, knows the line better than Rogozenko, even if the latter has a GM in front of his name!).
In short, I completely misevaluated the position, and thinking I was “fine” played the “immediately equalizing” –
12… e5??
Which just happens to lose by force. Sevillano suddenly got very happy and played his next few moves with lightning speed.
13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Ba3 Re8
Black has no choice (15...Bd6 16.Bxd6 Qxd6 17.Bh7+).
After 15…Re8, Sevillano, still taking less than a second per move, dropped this bomb on me.
16.Bb5!
As soon as I saw it, I knew I was dead.
I could see 16...Qxd1 was disastrous. White plays 17.Rbxd1 and in all the subsequent variations White is attacking with all his pieces, and has a reasonably safe King (the back rank checks are usually stopped by Bf1, and in some variations White attacks with a kingside pawn and also makes luft.
Meanwhile Black is pinned on the back rank and is thus playing without half his pieces, the black queen-Rook and black queen-Bishop. I took some time, looked at 17...Re6 18.Rd8+ Kh7 19.Rf8 f5 20.Rd1 and said, “Hell no! This is just too easy for White.” If one wants to do further analysis, then let’s say 20… a6 (20...b6 21.Rdd8 and the Rooks are murderous; 20...Bxc3 21.Rc1 a6 22.Bd3 Rc6 23.Rxc8 Raxc8 24.Bxf5+ g6 25.Bxc8 Rxc8 26.Bb4 wins the Exchange) 21.Bc4 Rb6 (21...Rc6 22.Bd5 Rc7 [22...Rxc3 23.Bb2, +-] 23.Re8 Bxc3 24.Bd6 Rd7 25.Bg8+ Kg6 26.Be6 Rxd6 27.Rxd6 Be5 28.Rb6 Bc7 29.Rb2 Bxe6 30.Rxa8 and White comes out two Exchanges up) 22.g4! fxg4 (22...g6 23.Rf7+ Bg7 24.Bf8, +-; 22...Rb8 23.gxf5, +- with the idea of Bg8+ and Bf7-g6) 23.Re1 Bxc3 (23...Bf6 24.Bd3+ g6 25.Rf7+ Kg8 26.Bc4, +-) 24.Bd3+ g6 25.Re7+ Bg7 26.Rff7 and mates.
As I say, I hardly calculated all that, but (here’s an ironic point) I accurately evaluated the position after the Queen exchange as dead lost for Black! Now I wish I had accurately evaluated the position when it was still +/=!
Since trying to cling to material gave no hope, I sacrificed a pawn and hoped for play.
16…Bf5 17.Bxe8 Bxb1 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.Qb3+!
Very important: Black gets a bad King position to go with his lost pawn. Yuck! (professional position evaluation).
19...Kf6 20.Qxb1 Qc7
Or 20...Bxc3 21.Rd1 with a winning attack against the exposed black King.
21.h4 Rc8
Or 21...Qxc3 22.Be7+! Ke6 23.Bb4 Qc4 24.Re1 Kf6 25.h5 with a winning attack against the exposed black King, or am I repeating myself?
22.Re1 Qd7
And if 22...Bxc3 23.Re3, ditto.
23.h5
The threat is Qg6 mate.
23...Qf5
Hoping to draw the ending.
24.f4!
No such luck!
The variations are not so deep.
24...Qxb1 25.fxe5+ wins a piece.
24...Bxf4 25.Be7+ wins the Queen.
24...Qxf4 25.Qg6 is mate.
It’s time to resign, and so I did!
You can imagine how unhappy I was: from being alone in first place to picking up some consolation money … but wait – it gets worse! At that time I didn’t have a computer, but would often stop in the internet café near my apartment. I was curious about how quickly Sevillano had moved, and so I looked up the position, and found the following game on Chessbase.com:
Sevillano (2445) – S Nikolaus (2450) [B22]
Moscow, 1994
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 e6 6.cxd4 d6 7.Nc3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Nc6 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Bd3 e5 (Oh no!) 11.0–0 0–0 12.dxe5 (unprintable comment!!) 12…Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Ba3 Re8 15.Bb5 Be6 16.Bxe8 Qxe8 17.Qf3 b6 18.Rfe1 Bf6 19.Bd6 Rc8 20.Be5 Bxe5 21.Rxe5 Qa4 22.h3 h6 23.Re3 Qa3 24.Qe4 Rc4 25.Qc2 b5 26.Qd2 Qa5 27.Rg3 Qc7 28.Rd1 Kh7 29.Qc2+ g6 30.Qb2 Qc5 31.Rd8 Qe5 32.Qd2, 1–0.
In other words, except for a slight opening transposition, Sevillano had won this game already. No wonder he could move so speedily!
I felt like an idiot!
Now the question is, just how many mistakes did I make in preparing for and playing this crucial last round game? Let’s count them up:
Number one is clearly “playing a line I didn’t know.” And there was absolutely no reason for this! I had faced Sevillano’s c3 Sicilian twice before and made draws both times. The first time I answered 1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.e5 and Sevillano transposed into the hardly terrifying Advanced French, and I drew easily. The second time I played 2…d6 3.d4 Nf6 offering the gambit 4.dc5 Nc6!?. Sevillano declined the gambit, but made nothing out of the opening, and again I drew easily. I knew both these lines well, so why didn’t I play either one? Why did I suddenly buy a book and try something new? I’m not sure myself, but I think I had some panicky feeling he would be prepared for my “known defenses” and so I should “surprise” him – but as one sees, I only surprised myself, while all he had to do was remember a previous win!
Furthermore, while we’re still on number one, it is impossible to learn a line from a few minutes reading a book. One must study with a board and evaluate the lines yourself – after all, the book might be wrong! Or the moves might be so unlikely (yes, 8… Qc7 is best and does probably equalize with best play, despite Acs’ misfortune) that you probably won’t find them at the board. Proper preparation takes more than twenty minutes!
I should have stuck with what I knew, and then, yes, he might have been prepared – but if one knows an opening well, surprises will hardly baffle you – after all, you’re on your home territory too, and you can find a way out.
Number two: I became psychologically distraught because I was certain I was getting White against one opponent, then got Black against someone else. The fact is, this kind of thing happens all the time in American Swiss tournaments – we’re not talking about an International with the pairings posted in advance!
So one shouldn’t ever worry about the pairings – just play who you get! And one should never, never think that just because a game is objectively a dead draw, that it will actually end up with a split point! Chessplayers are human, we do zany things, sometimes we just blunder for no reason!
And number three, perhaps the most important, is the point I mentioned in the notes to the game. Try to correctly, objectively evaluate the position. Forget books, Fritz, your friends looking at your board, the money, the lack of money, everything – make an honest evaluation.
If I had done that, realized I was slightly worse, I would never have opened the game with 12… e5. I consider that move a strategic, rather than a tactical blunder – yes, I missed 16.Bb5, but that’s not the point. The point is, Black should be playing to gradually develop and neutralize White’s pressure – this was not a time for a violent outburst!
How many mistakes was that? Three!
Yes, the magic number: three strikes and you’re out!
| 