I was playing in a STC 60 30 tournament at ICC against a player rated close to 2200. I thought I had somewhat of an advantage in the middlegame but blew it at one point. I entered an endgame where I was up the exchange for a pawn, but I played terribly at the end (time trouble was a bit of a factor). I think 34 was my last chance for advantage; I think I should have played Kg1 forcing the exchange or retreat of his last Rook. But there were plenty of dumb moves after that.
Anyway, here it is. Ridicule is expected but constructive criticism would be welcome.
One thing I might say is that it felt like the position needed a little better development by white: for example there was a point where you played Bh5+ which I didnt feel was a necessary move - his king wants to head over to the other side of the board so it is just getting it there quicker. I wondered whethere something like Bd3 and Rad1 might have been more helpful as it allows you to coordinate the pieces faster and his king would still have been in the firing line.
Hope that is some help, I can probably clarify the points I have made if you like.
Hope that is some help, I can probably clarify the points I have made if you like.
At 24 Bd3 was not possible; do you mean 24 Be3? I got a little check happy plus I wanted to clear the g-file for my rooks.
As for Korch's comment, obviously 26 Rg4 was a little trap that my opponent didn't fall into. Perhaps I should have followed it with 27 Be3, so I could get the other Rook over.
Originally posted by no1marauder At 24 Bd3 was not possible; do you mean 24 Be3? I got a little check happy plus I wanted to clear the g-file for my rooks.
As for Korch's comment, obviously 26 Rg4 was a little trap that my opponent didn't fall into. Perhaps I should have followed it with 27 Be3, so I could get the other Rook over.
What about 26.b3!? with 1) threat to play Ba3 2) intention to eliminate Black central pawns with b3xc4 ?
Also 24.f5! was much better - Black dont have anything better than 24...e5 and after 25.Rg1 (threating Bh5+ and Bg5) Black should lose.
28.f5? was giving up pawn for nothing - after this move position seems to be equal - After 28.Be3 white would have some plus. When queens were exchanged position was at least equal and became worse after 34.Rh6?! (34.Kg1 would make black rook to step back on f8). So you missed win in middle game not in endgame.
Your decisive mistake seems to be 36.Rxe6? - better was protecting your c pawn with 36.Rh3.
Btw - Black exchange sacrifice (15...Rxf3!) was correct and would give them good play if not 20...Qh4? (20....Ne5) allowing 21.Bxf5!.
Originally posted by Korch What about 26.b3!? with 1) threat to play Ba3 2) intention to eliminate Black central pawns with b3xc4 ?
Also 24.f5! was much better - Black dont have anything better than 24...e5 and after 25.Rg1 (threating Bh5+ and Bg5) Black should lose.
28.f5? was giving up pawn for nothing - after this move position seems to be equal - After 28.Be3 white would have ...[text shortened]... Rxf3!) was correct and would give them good play if not 20...Qh4? (20....Ne5) allowing 21.Bxf5!.
I saw the exchange sac coming, but don't think it was correct. The fact is I was able to get more pieces into play on the kingside quickly than Black was. And I figured the g-file would be useful (as it was).
I was referring to the endgame as "blown" because I don't think I should have lost an endgame up the exchange for a pawn. I still think I retain good winning chances after 34 Kg1.
36 was Bxe6 and it was certainly stupid. I kept thinking I could drum up an attack on the King but throwing away my pawns was very ill-advised. Black wound up with three connected passers on the Queenside and a Knight in a beautiful position. The game was certainly strategically lost at that point.
Originally posted by no1marauder I saw the exchange sac coming, but don't think it was correct. The fact is I was able to get more pieces into play on the kingside quickly than Black was. And I figured the g-file would be useful (as it was).
I was referring to the endgame as "blown" because I don't think I should have lost an endgame up the exchange for a pawn. I still t ...[text shortened]... d a Knight in a beautiful position. The game was certainly strategically lost at that point.
Can`t agree with your evaluation of exchange sacrifice as before 20...Qh4? Black had a positional compensation due to strong center and weaknesses in White kingside. Tigran Petrosian was master in making such kind of positional exchange sacrifices (for example his game vs Reshevsky in Zurich, 1953).
Not sure about White advantage after 34.Kg1 Rf8 as Black minor pieces seems to be not least dangerous. For example if White don`t want to lose their c pawn and play 35.cxd4 then after 35...Bxd4+ 36.Kg2 Ne5 Black has initiative. Also position after 35.Bd2 Rg8 26.h3 d3 does not seem to give serious advantage.
Originally posted by Korch Can`t agree with your evaluation of exchange sacrifice as before 20...Qh4? Black had a positional compensation due to strong center and weaknesses in White kingside. Tigran Petrosian was master in making such kind of positional exchange sacrifices (for example his game vs Reshevsky in Zurich, 1953).
Not sure about White advantage after 34.Kg1 Rf8 as Black ...[text shortened]... has initiative. Also position after 35.Bd2 Rg8 26.h3 d3 does not seem to give serious advantage.
If I was playing Petrosian, maybe he would have had sufficient compensation. As it was, Black was unable to capitalize on the Kingside "weaknesses" in the middle game; in fact, the doubled pawns controlled key squares and left good files for the White Rooks.
Both the continuations you gave are tame and it's true enough that White would have little, if any, advantage after them. However, the most consistent move in the spirit of 34 Kg1 after 34 ...... Rf8 would be 35 Rf1. Black is pretty much forced to trade Rooks and after 35 Rf1 Rxf1 36 Kxf1 dxc3 37 bxc3 Bxc3, White's passed h-pawn is extremely dangerous as it is well supported by the Bishop pair and the Rook. Black's light squared Bishop is weak and White's Bishops can also contain Black's passed c-pawn (and the White King is closer to the center). I admit I haven't analyzed it thoroughly but it seems that White has good chances for a win.
Originally posted by no1marauder If I was playing Petrosian, maybe he would have had sufficient compensation. As it was, Black was unable to capitalize on the Kingside "weaknesses" in the middle game; in fact, the doubled pawns controlled key squares and left good files for the White Rooks.
Both the continuations you gave are tame and it's true enough that White would have li mit I haven't analyzed it thoroughly but it seems that White has good chances for a win.
You gave up one of your doubled pawns not because it was too strong and useful. I`m pretty sure that if your opponent would not play 20...Qh4? (which missed tactic which was not too complicated) you would not have reason to complain about good position which you could not win. Feel free to show your winning plan if Black would play 20...Ne5.
I agree that 35.Rf1 seems to be the most real chance to fight for win but after 35....Rxf1 36 Kxf1 dxc3 37 bxc3 Bxc3 its not so simple - as Black can start to move their queen side pawns, h8 is under control of Black bishop, and White will need some extra tempo to move their rook (who prevents to get h-pawn on 8th horizontal) and to control h8. That position seems very complicated for me and in practice both sides has opportunity to make decisive mistake.
Originally posted by Korch You gave up one of your doubled pawns not because it was too strong and useful. I`m pretty sure that if your opponent would not play 20...Qh4? (which missed tactic which was not too complicated) you would not have reason to complain about good position which you could not win. Feel free to show your winning plan if Black would play 20...Ne5.
I agree that 35 ...[text shortened]... ems very complicated for me and in practice both sides has opportunity to make decisive mistake.
I'll skip the slagging match you inevitably want to get into; thanks for your comments. I never claimed to have a "winning plan"; I just think that Black doesn't have sufficient compensation for the exchange sac since White's pieces can reach the Kingside more quickly and effectively than Black's. I gave up the first doubled pawn to open lines towards Black's King; that's a pretty useful thing for a pawn to do IMO.
I agree the situation after the line I gave is complicated, but I think White has the practical advantage for the reasons I gave. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by no1marauder I'll skip the slagging match you inevitably want to get into; thanks for your comments. I never claimed to have a "winning plan"; I just think that Black doesn't have sufficient compensation for the exchange sac since White's pieces can reach the Kingside more quickly and effectively than Black's. I gave up the first doubled pawn to open lines towards Bl ...[text shortened]... he practical advantage for the reasons I gave. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I`m not gonna slagging with you - I just want to understand your point. For example I`m not sure what will give g-line for you when knight after 20...Ne5 will move on g6 (after 21.Rg1+ for example. And I don`t see effective plan for white to exploit their material advantage. That is the reason why I think that Black has compensation.
About that endgame - maybe you are right as I`m really not sure about evaluation - its too complicated for making any claims without deep engine assisted analysis.
Originally posted by Korch I`m not gonna slagging with you - I just want to understand your point. For example I`m not sure what will give g-line for you when knight after 20...Ne5 will move on g6 (after 21.Rg1+ for example. And I don`t see effective plan for white to exploit their material advantage. That is the reason why I think that Black has compensation.
About that endgame - ...[text shortened]... ut evaluation - its too complicated for making any claims without deep engine assisted analysis.
Off the top of my head without running it through any engine:
21 Rg1+ Ng6 22 Bg5 Q moves say 23 Qh5 or 23 h4 seems to give White a promising attack.
Maybe there's not a forced win, but Black seems to be under heavy pressure as well as being down material.
To me it appears like a normal game where the much lower-rated player "self-destructs" against the stronger player (running against the wall?), whereas the stronger player just cruises to victory. OK, White had Bxf5 as an unwelcome surprise for Black, but for the rest, the flow of the game was as can be expected with such a difference in strength...
Originally posted by heinzkat To me it appears like a normal game where the much lower-rated player "self-destructs" against the stronger player (running against the wall?), whereas the stronger player just cruises to victory. OK, White had Bxf5 as an unwelcome surprise for Black, but for the rest, the flow of the game was as can be expected with such a difference in strength...
You really don't know anything about chess, do you?
Black hardly "cruised to victory"; in fact as SG and Korch have pointed out, 24 f5! probably wins (so much for the "flow"😉. As to the difference in strength, I see players with a 450 point deficit in rating draw or win all the time; in an OTB game last year I saw a local 1900 player defeat GM Keith Arkell (rated in the 2500s) in a G/60.
Blown Endgame
22 Feb '09 19:053 edits
Back to Top