Rolling Pawns

Before the game I looked at the standings and tried to define with whom I could play. I found that it has to be the guy to whom I lost twice after the Covid break. These were games that were seriously fought for 60-70 moves, still I got nervous. When I came to the club and saw the pairings I got exactly that guy, he had White again, I couldn’t calm down.

When he played d4, c4 I decided to play Budapest Gambit. After my 3… Ng4 he unexpectedly played e4. It happens much less often than Nf3 or Bf4, in online DB it is about 11%, in 31 online game I played with Budapest Gambit it happened twice. I had some preparation, so remembered to play 5… Nec6, but then completely blacked out and forgot about 6… Bb4+ and then 7… Qe7 or Tartakower’s idea 7… Qh4+ 8. g3 Qe7 to weaken White’s kingside.

So I played passive 6… d6 and then decided to fianchetto my dark-colored bishop. I think my plan was too slow, especially taking into account that I didn’t want to castle kingside believing that White will have a more dangerous attack. Computer doesn’t like my 10… Bg4 preferring to castle. After 12. h3 I didn’t take on f3 because I thought that after I castle queenside he can play c5 and I can’t play dxc5, not realizing that my queen would be defended not only by rook, but by king too.

After exchange on f5 and 16. Nh4 I suddenly noticed that I can’t castle queenside because of 17. Nxf5 Qxf5 18. Bg4. I didn’t see 16… h5 preventing the skewer and deciding that staying in the center becomes too dangerous castled kingside. Computer says that it was a suicide. The attack quickly became very dangerous and I couldn’t find any good moves. My attempt to find a perpetual failed and after a couple of moves I resigned.

A big tournament, the one that last time was 3 years ago, happened again. A record number of people, 225, registered for this event. I couldn’t play in the 1st round as I had a big party/event the night before, so I took a bye.

Round 2. Just before the departure the pairings came up and I found that I have Black with a girl rated 1700+, who plays Scotch Game. When we started that’s exactly what happened. Everything went by the book, by move 22 I managed to double my rooks on the “e” vertical. Computer criticizes her 28. Rd3 and says that I had to play d4. I considered it of course, but didn’t like b4. The thing is b4 doesn’t work and Black is better.

Eventually we exchanged the rooks. I thought that in the arisen N vs B endgame I have an advantage, but computer says it is dead equal. She had just a couple of minutes remaining, I had about 15, but she looked confident. I didn’t see how I can win, felt somewhat tired and and went for a 3-fold repetition, it was a right decision.

Round 3. I didn’t sleep well and my head was heavy. I got a boy rated 1700+, knew that he plays Sicilian and decided to try Sicilian Closed. I played it intensively in 2018 with very good results, so recently decided to change the repertoire and even bought a book. When he played 9… b6, I suddenly decided that the knight is hanging and decided to exploit it. 10. f5 looked like a good move with the threat of f6 and knight not having a square to retreat. I spent about 15 minutes and played it.

To my surprise he quickly answered 10… exf5 and then I saw that the knight on c6 is defended by another knight on e7. After 11… Bf5 I ended up down a pawn. Computer considers it unsound, thought later I thought that I got some compensation. On move 16 he played natural move 16… Nec6, which computer doesn’t like and wants me to play 17. Ncd5 saying I would get 1.5 advantage.

That maneuver is typical for Sicilian Closed and I failed to execute it. Then 18. Nfe2 was a bad idea, I am not sure I didn’t mix the knights, since I was trying to control h3 square. My position started to deteriorate, on move 29 I had to take on f3 with the queen, not the rook. On move 31 he played flashy Qf3, computer prefers Rfe8. In a few moves the pawn march decided the game.

Round 4. I managed to get a nap despite of the kids running around in the room for the players/parents and also drank coffee right before the game. I learned that my opponent plays Scotch gambit, Dubois-Reti defence and despite of knowing this variation didn’t have an appetite for a complicated and sharp play. At the same time I was feeling some rage after the loss. So I decided to play Petrov’s Defence, it proved to be a good idea though it transformed into Four Knights defense. I answered d6 to his 4. Bb5, it wasn’t the best choice, but to my shame I am not familiar very well with the lines here.

He played fast and energetically, I played fast too and had to force myself to slow down at some point. On move 12 he gave up his second bishop and I started to feel good about the game. On move 20 I saw d5 and played it. He answered with a bad move f4 and I won a pawn. Putting the bishop on d3 was not necessary, it only constantly required to look for a sacrifice on d3.

By move 28 he managed to find the only resource for counterattack and played g4. It is a 1st choice, though computer still thinks he is worse. At some moment my position looked so non-pleasant, that I regretted not playing h5 earlier (I considered it, but for the attacking purposes). I even thought about an exchange sacrifice, but thought that my rooks would still serve me and it was right.

I finally found a defensive formation and then my 33… b6 started preparation of an advance in the center. After my 36… e3 he unexpectedly took the bishop on c4 and my advantage started to look very serious. His 39. Nh5 was a mistake and after 40. Qd5+ he resigned, it was actually mate in 8.

Round 5. On the night before I learned that my opponent is a familiar person, he blundered a queen in an equal game with me many years ago and a few years ago I lost a hard fought game to him. He is also a TD in the Wednesdays club. I saw that he plays Scandinavian, 2… Nf6 variation. Instead of 3… Bd7 he chose rarer 3…Nbd7 that is gaining more attention recently.

By move 10 computer doesn’t like Black’s position and recommends 10. a4. I have to say that he surprised me with 10.. f6 and 11… g5. His 19… e5 allowed me to take on g4 with a check and then I noticed that the bishop on g6 is left en prise. I thought that this is a culmination of his bad play in the opening and without much thinking took the bishop. Suddenly he took on c5 and I realized that I can’t take back because of the Rg8 threat and I can’t play Qe4 because of Qxe4 with a mate threat.

To my upset I realized that I lost all my advantage and have to play for a draw in the endgame. Computer says that instead of 29. f4 move Kf3 was a better idea. Another not a very good idea was exchanging the rooks. After we exchanged the bishops there was an excellent possibility to make a draw after his 40… Kc6. You just have to slow down and think about the position, then you will realize that the pawn endgame is lost for Black. So 40. Re1 and then moving the rook up and down forces Black to escape the exchange creating 3-fold repetition. I did not see it at all.

After a couple of moves I realized that I got worse and I think I panicked. After 42. Re5+ I was already lost and made another decisive mistake by playing 42. Rxf5. In a several moves I resigned and was visibly upset.

Round 6. My opponent was an aged man rated 1500+, my acquaintance said he goes to the Thursday’s club. I had Black, he played d4, c4 and after a quick thinking I decided to play Budapest Gambit feeling that I have enough gas in the tank. Recently I lost in it, but had a draw at some point. We went along the theory lines. After his 13. Bxe5 I thought that he wants to simplify the position to get a draw.

On move 17 I played c5, not sure I would play it now even computer says it’s OK. His bishop on d5 was pretty annoying, I was afraid to exchange it. Next 15 moves he tried to build an attack on the kingside, so my suggestion about his peaceful intentions was wrong. He did not succeed, spent a lot of time and having 30 minutes less suddenly offered a draw. I was annoyed by his attacking and said that I will think about it, he probably didn’t hear and asked again, I said: “No draw”. So I decided to organize a breakthrough on the queenside and force him to find solutions in the time trouble.

It didn’t go exactly according to the plan and I made a risky decision. I put my rooks for an exchange, seeing that I will lose c5 pawn in the end. I counted on perpetual after 47… Qd1+. On move 50 I started an attempt to open up his king’s cover. It was a right idea. Then my 54. Qf4 could cost me a game. There is a line 54… Qf4 55. b5 Qxh4 56. Qd2 f5 57. Qh6+ and Black is losing. Honestly I don’t think you can see such a line in the time trouble. In a few moves I almost completely opened up the king and got the pawn back. His 62. Qc6 lead to a perpetual.

I decided to post two games sharing the same variation of French, Tarrasch defense. They were played in rounds 3 and 5 of the Mondays club tournament that finished in January. It happened that in the last 2 months I played this variation 3 times, so it deserves some attention.

Round 3. My opponent was a boy rated about 1950, relatively new in the club, never played him before. We went along theory lines, there was 1 game with 13… a6 and then it was played 14. Bg5, it is also a computer recommendation. On move 17 I could play typical Nf5, getting two bishops.

By move 25 the game transformed into R+B vs R+N endgame. I was somewhat surprised by his 25… Nd5 as it would lead to him getting isolani after my 26. Bf3. Then suddenly he played 26… Rd6. I couldn’t believe my eyes, he didn’t see c4. I played it and won the knight. He continued to play, but it was a matter of some technique and on move 50 he resigned.

I was happy of course, then thought what was the reason of his weak play. One explanation could be that he played on weekend in the tournament, the same that I played in, but in the open section, and didn’t have an easy life getting 1.5/5. So, maybe he didn’t recover on the next day. Anyway sometimes people get lucky with me and it was my turn. As Carlsen said after Nepomniachtchi’s blunder: “No style points awarded, so I’ll take it.”

Round 5. Unexpectedly I got my acquaintance master. So he played this variation as he did twice before, I had =1, -1, lost in an equal endgame. On move 16 he played Bb7 leaving his knight on f6, but I hesitated to take it expecting to get under attack. I actually won’t, but I had to take on e6 with the bishop after the exchange on f6 and it would be equal.

The crucial point in the game came when he played 17… Bf4. Of course all the time before I was considering typical sacrifice on e6, but I failed to do it at that moment. As I remember I thought that after I exchange on f6 and take on e6 with the bishop, after 19… fxe6 20. Nxe6 he can escape with Qc6 threatening the mate. I saw that then I can take on f4, but I thought that I would lose the knight after e5 as the knight can’t move. I still saw that pawn on e6 that didn’t exist anymore, too bad.

So instead of winning the pawn I just exchanged the bishops. We also exchanged the queens and for a while I was able to keep a balance. On move 36 I made a wrong decision to exchange the rooks and the bishops, not realizing that in the knight endgame I will be worse. He was pressing, but his 50… f4 was a mistake. At that exact moment someone at the TD’s table started to talk on the phone, it was very distracting. On move 52 I blundered putting my knight on c5. After a forced exchange the game was over.

Interesting that after the right move 52. Nc7 computer says that I can hold it, even if Black would win the “h” pawn. My king could block both pawns on the kingside and my knight would keep his king at bay.