Still playing a lot, these are OTB rated games too.
Getting the new baby settled into a routine.
It’s been wide open at work playing catch up. (See above)
Other than that it is business as usual.
Hopefully I get a chance to post some of the happenings
in my tournament games.
Annotated Game
N.N – Lassila,T. (D10 – Slav Defense)
1.d4 c6
2.c4 d5
3.Nc3 Nf6
A little transpositional trick leads us to the Slav.
4.e3 g6
I usually play the Semi-Slav in such cases, but didn’t want to risk all the complicated lines that lie there. In a few moves we transpose again, this time to the Grünfeld.
5.Bd2 Bg7
6.Nf3 O-O
7.Be2 dxc4
7.Qb3 is more usual here. The pawn capture is thematic and seemingly obvious, but could Black have departed from theory here? For example 7…e6 8.O-O Nbd7 9.Qc2 b6 10.cxd5 exd5 and White had some initiative but could only draw in Liebert-Hort, 1971. Gligoric tried 7…Ne4 8. O-O Nxd2 9. Qxd2 e6 10. cxd5 exd5 against Petrosian. The problem with playing e7-e6 and then exd5 is that White has insufficient positional compensation for the time spent fianchettoing the king’s bishop. The bishop pair will be mostly useless here while the white knights proved to be exceptional when handled by Petrosian. Hort had earlier tried a variation on the idea against Reshevsky. Reshevsky-Hort, Los Angeles 1967 went: 7…Ne4 8.O-O Nxd2 9.Qxd2 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nd7 11.Rfd1 Nb6. I still think it suffers from the same problems as the previous line by Gligoric.
8.Bxc4 Nbd7
Or 8…Bg4 9.h3 Bf5 with similar play as in the text.
9.O-O Nb6
Also tried has been 9…c5. Kortchnoi-Gheorghiu, Romania 1968 went: 10.Qe2 cxd4 11.exd4 Nb6 12.Bb3 Bg4 13.Rad1 e6 14.Bg5 Qd7 15.h3 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Nbd5 17.Rfe1 Rac8 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.d5 exd5 20.Bxd5 Rb8 21.Bb3 Qc7 22.Nb5 Qb6 23.Nd6 Rbd8 24.Nxf7 Rxf7 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 26.Qxb7 Qd7 27.Re7 1-0
10.Bb3 Bf5
11.Re1 Rc8!?
Black could try to stop e3-e4 with 11…Ne4. If 12. Nxe4 Bxe4 13. Ne5 then simply 13…Bxe5 14. dxe5 c5 15. Rc1 Rc8 16. f3 Bd5 maintains equal chances despite the apparent weakness of the dark squares.
12.e4 Bg4
13.Be3 Kh8
It was probably also possible to play 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Qxd4 15.Rad1 with initiative. The text gives White a comfortable edge, too. The waiting king move accomplishes little besides unpinning the f-pawn, but there is not much Black can do here but struggle on. 13…e5 14.d5 cxd5 15.exd5 e4 16.Bxb6 Qxb6 17.Nxe4 Nxe4 18.Rxe4 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Bxb2 20.Rae1 is very unpleasant.
14.h3 Bxf3
15.Qxf3 Ne8
Trying everything to break the annoying pin on f7. After 16.e5 e6 Black would have a terrible position but would be able to lock out the menacing bishop on b3.
16.Rad1 f5?
Not good, but the alternatives are not tempting either. 16…Nd6 17.d5 cxd5 18.Nxd5 Nd7 19.Nc3 leaves the black king in hot water.
17.Bg5 h6
Weakening further. It’s hard to recommend anything for Black here. The evaluation must be already +-.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Position after 17…h6
18.Be6!? hxg5
Simply 18.Bh4 and next move 19.Be6 would have sufficed to win. The sacrifice is beatiful and gives White tremendous play.
19.exf5 Rc7
Giving back material with 19…Nc7 20.Bxc8 Nxc8 is probably advisable to this. I did want to be a materialist for a while in the hopes of refuting White’s attack. Turns out it’s not quite so simple.
20.Qg4 Bf6?!
20…Bh6 21.fxg6 Kg7 and White has a big attack but no obvious way to get in. 22.Bf7 Nd6 23.Ne4 Nxf7 24.Nc5 Kxg6 25.Qe4+ Kf6 26.Qf3+ Kg6 27.Qe4+ leads to anti-climactic repetition.
21.h4! Ng7
22.hxg5 Nxe6
23.fxe6 Bg7
23.gxf6 Rxf6 24.fxe6 Kg7 25.Ne4 and Black can resign. This way should work as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Position after 23…Bg7
24.Re3 Qe8
Not much better is 24…Qd6 25. Rh3+ Kg8 26. Qh4 Qxe6 27. Qh7+ Kf7 28. Rf3+ Ke8 29. Qxg7 Rxf3 30. gxf3 +/-.
25.Qh4+ Kg8
26.Rh3 Rf5
27.Qh7+ Kf8
27.g4 Rf4 28.Ne2 and the rook runs out of squares.
28.Qh4 Nd5
29.Qh8+ Bxh8
Again 29.g4 or 29.Nxd5 would win outright. The combination wins as well, but is probably the hardest way to accomplish said task. The endgame could be analyzed separately, but I suspect Black is just dead lost here.
30.Rxh8+ Kg7
31.Rxe8 Rxg5
32.Ne4 Rf5
33.Nc5 Rf8
34.Rxf8 Kxf8
35.Rd3 Nf6
36.Rf3 Kg7
37.Kh2 b6
There aren’t any good ways to defend the position, but now White wins by a forced series of moves.
38.Nd7 Nxd7
39.Rf7+ Kg8
40.Rxe7 Kf8
41.Rxd7 Rxd7
42.exd7 Ke7
43.Kg3 Kxd7
44.Kg4 1-0
I have come to a not so stunning conclusion.
The best way to improve in chess is with a balanced approach.
I certainly don’t regret spending a concentrated amount of time on tactical
study earlier this year. Nor do I regret my time spent on creating an opening
repertoire, which is still an on going process, and after my lessons with IM Predrag Trajkovic I see the importance of studying endgames.
More importantly I have learned from Predrag that chess has to be approached
as a whole. One time I asked him if there was a set amount of time required for a player in each area (Openings, middle games, endings) he replied there are no set rules and no one could answer it with complete certainty, you get better by correcting your weaknesses.
Well since I can only discover those through playing that will be my focus this coming year. Playing and putting it all together.
I didn’t play a rated game during all of 2005 and I missed it.
My plan is to set up a structured approach to reviewing my games and allowing the necessary space to work on areas that need improvement, combining that with opening study, tactical exercises, and endgames.
Honestly I could go ahead and say that I need to improve in every area of my game.
Takchess mentioned something about a book that I had long since forgotten that I owned,
“GM RAM” by Rashid Ziatdinov. I decided to reread it after some of my lessons with IM Trajkovic, since he uses a similar approach in our lessons (understanding positions) I just didn’t put the two together until I finished reading.
Basically the book is comprised of positions that the author feels are essential knowledge for becoming a better player. The author also surmises that all strong players do not look at positions and count moves like “I will play here, he will play there, etc”. Instead a strong player sees a few reasonable moves immediately, and will go from there often without considering variations.
He feels that Chess is a language and I will take the liberty of quoting him directly as not to lose anything in translation. “Most chess players learn the game in a very unscientific manner. First they learn the basic rules-how the pieces move and the basic checkmates. Later they start to learn some openings and learn some basic principles, such as the importance of proper development and control of central space. Then if they become serious, comes deeper study of the openings, and eventually, and often reluctantly, study of the endgame. This is very much analogous to learning a language by learning whole paragraphs, and only much later, if ever, bothering to learn the basic vocabulary and simple sentence structures. Eventually some proficiency can be obtained, but mastery of the language’s nuances will likely never be obtained, since the early bad habits will be hard to overcome. The highly successful Russian school of chess takes the opposite approach. Start with the endings and teaching fundamental knowledge, and then build upon this knowledge.”
The first part of his quote sounds pretty much the way I learned to play, bass-ackwards.
He also states in another section “that logic is more important than memory.”
This sentiment is echoed in Irving Chernev’s book “Logical Chess:Move by Move, and also by IM Trajkovic. Who told me at the beginning of our first lesson that good chess is about correct thinking processes, and not about opening theory.
Little did I know at the time that IM Trajkovic is teaching me how to play by showing me the rules of chess thinking and why also those seemingly trite sayings (knights before bishops, passed pawns must be pushed, etc.) are the building blocks of becoming a better player.
Now the good news, GM Rashid Ziatdinov says that learning these positions is only one part of the puzzle, and that tactical training along with some opening study is required.
(So I don’t feel like I lost anything by spending a tremendous amount of time on tactics or openings the past year.) He states a player should “study the theory of an opening only after playing it. The point is that by playing the opening you will gain first hand experience in analyzing the types of positions that can arise.”
All I have to do now is figure out how to balance correcting my weaknesses. 
