Greetings players and fellow patzers 🙂
Well, haven't done one of these for a little while,
but this past weekend's congress was ridiculous to the point where I simply had to.
The sheer LUCK witnessed over the board was incredible.
It is a landmark result for me, one I should be proud of,
but looking at the 'quality' of the games played does slightly tarnish the occasion.
The tournament.
It was played in Leamington Spa, the 28th 4ncl congress.
The section was the Major, U2000, 62 players entered. Time controls 90mins + 30s per move.
I've played quite a few of these Major tournaments now, often struggling to get any positive score.
This time last year, I played the same tournament and scored 50% (2.5/5)
My aim this weekend was simply to beat that.
Without further ado, here are the games. Sit back and enjoy the carnage.
---------------
Game 1 - Zak Tomlinson (1847) vs Chris Pitt (1648)
Being a swiss tournament system, folks in the top half of the ratings get paired vs the bottom half.
When in the 1700's, I used to regularly get paired vs one of the top seeded players in round 1.
Now being paired vs one of the lower rated players, I still feel nothing can be taken for granted.
In fact, this game simply kicks off the trend of what was things to come!
Following tradition, I'll share the stockfish move accuracy results.
The first game of which, I'm surprised by... it's quite generous towards White.
Zak Tomlinson
Inaccuracies - 3
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Avg. centipawn loss - 19
Chris Pitt
Inaccuracies - 2
Mistakes - 1
Blunders - 1
Avg. centipawn loss - 42
I'll spoil it right now... this was my best played game of the tournament, by far!
Game 2 - Simeon Bott (1963) vs Zak Tomlinson (1847)
In round 2 I see a familiar face, someone I encountered a few years back, Harrogate 2019.
That game ended a draw, we both had chances to win but missed the opportunities.
Both our ratings have increased since then, however Simeon's is much more significant!
Let's see how this meeting turns out.
Simeon Bott
Inaccuracies - 5
Mistakes - 3
Blunders - 3
Avg. centipawn loss - 46
Zak Tomlinson
Inaccuracies - 3
Mistakes - 3
Blunders - 2
Avg. centipawn loss - 32
Game 3 - Zak Tomlinson (1847) vs Lewis Turner (1986)
Having survived a battle with 4th seed, I now face the 2nd seeded player on the same day.
Before the game started, I said to my opponent that I'd seen his name around
and asked him whether he often plays Open sections.
He said he plays a "mixture of opens and majors".
He's also the same age as me, but looks 5 years younger..... dammit.
Here's the game.
Zak Tomlinson
Inaccuracies - 8
Mistakes - 2
Blunders - 0
Avg. centipawn loss - 37
Lewis Turner
Inaccuracies - 9
Mistakes - 1
Blunders - 3
Avg. centipawn loss - 54
Game 4 - Robert Dean (1843) vs Zak Tomlinson (1847)
One of only three players on 3/3, Sunday morning I sat on board 2 with Black vs a friend of mine.
Bob was on 2.5, the other players on 3 faced each other on board 1.
Having been drinking until 2am the night before, on 5 hours sleep, I felt surprisingly upbeat.
I knew my opponent played the Ruy Lopez, we've played a few times before and I hadn't yet lost.
The opening suits us both, so I expected a tough grind.
Robert Dean
Inaccuracies - 2
Mistakes - 1
Blunders - 2
Avg. centipawn loss - 55
Zak Tomlinson
Inaccuracies - 1
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 3
Avg. centipawn loss - 54
Game 5 - Manpreet Sangha (1976) vs Zak Tomlinson (1847)
Board 1 in the previous round ended in a draw,
so there ended up being 4 joint leaders on 3.5/4 heading into the final round.
I had the good fortune of playing Black again, paired vs 3rd seed.
Surely.... SURELY my luck cannot continue?
I even joked when people wished me good luck, I said "That's all I've got!"
Here's how the tournament concluded.
Manpreet Sangha
Inaccuracies - 4
Mistakes - 3
Blunders - 3
Avg. centipawn loss - 78
Zak Tomlinson
Inaccuracies - 6
Mistakes - 1
Blunders - 4
Avg. centipawn loss - 59
--------------
Now you've seen these games, I think you can agree with me.
There is no way I should have finished joint winner of this tournament.
I could have, perhaps SHOULD have, lost at least 4 of these games.
But it's my first Major tournament victory, so regardless of how I got there, I'll take it!
Here's the final crosstable, for those interested:
https://chess-results.com/tnr653404.aspx?lan=1&art=4&flag=30
This is actually my 2nd tournament win this year,
having also got 4.5/5 in the Blackpool Intermediate (U1850) in March.
I never bothered to analyse those games, but could if folks wish to see them?
My next tournaments are as follows:
Northumbria Masters - August 26-30
https://northumbriamasters.com/
Ilkley Chess Festival - September 16-18
https://www.chesscentre.online/events/festival/d5e7229b-f574-48a1-97af-0e93db241078
Hull 4NCL - October 14-16
https://4ncl.co.uk/fide/information_hull_2022.htm
Scarborough Congress - October 28-30
https://www.scarboroughchess.uk/
If anyone reading this fancies playing in one of these and wants info etc., drop me a message.
Cheers,
Zak
@64squaresofpain
Congrats on the win.
I'll look at the games tomorrow morning when I am at my best.
How old are you if you don't mind me asking?
How long have you played?
Hi Zak,
Here are some observations about game 1.
My belief was that having a strong piece fixed on e5 was worth making such moves.
Although the knight is centralized, it blocks the only open file White has,
and 10.f4 reduces the mobility of White's bishop and creates a hole at e4.
I think it would be better to try enhance White's bishop, starting with 10.Nc4. If 10...Be7, then 11.Bf4, and White can still aim to post and maintain a knight at e5.
Placing a rook on an open file seems a good idea, but how is White going to make progress? So long as the e5-knight stays put, the e1-rook isn't really doing anything. And if the e5-knight moves, Black could trade at least one pair of rooks.
I think that my earlier suggested 10.Nc4 would have given White a better chance of exploiting the open e-file.
? I develop the Bishop, then block it whilst creating an isolated pawn
In considering 16.Bxd4, it's necessary to also examine possible replies such as 16...Nd5 or 16...Nh5 (being that 17.g3 would lose the pawn with check).
White's weak light squares (largely as a result of 10.f4) should be of concern.
? This solves my problem of the blocked Bishop.
On the flip side, it dissolves Black's c-pawn, which might have become a liability on a half-open file.
Here, I think Black should played 20...Nxc5, with later possibilities of ...Na4 or ...Nd3. Also, retaining the dark-square bishop would pressure e5 (thereby inhibiting Nd4...) and help control Black's dark squares.
Here Black played the passive 22...g6. A more active way to protect the pawn was 22...Be4, which also would prepare ...Nd3. The resulting liquidation would have facilitated a Black rook's reaching White's second rank. Black's defense in the remainder of the game wasn't nearly vigorous enough.
@beowulf saidThanks!
@64squaresofpain
Congrats on the win.
I'll look at the games tomorrow morning when I am at my best.
How old are you if you don't mind me asking?
How long have you played?
I don't mind at all, I'm 30 and have been playing chess since my late teens.
Wish I started sooner.
There are multiple youngsters in these tournaments, 6-8 years old,
who are very good and even beating 1800-2000 rated players.
Kushal Jakhria, for instance, finished on 3.5/5 in my section. He's only 7 years old.
He also tied 1st with me in Blackpool earlier this year:
https://chess-results.com/tnr618218.aspx?lan=1&art=4
He took a bye in round 1 and promptly demolished all 4 of his opponents!
His rating has increased 400 points since then... he'll be a GM before he's a teenager.
EDIT
Also, thanks for your analysis David 🙂
Please don't pick my other games apart too much, they are full of howlers!
Some observations on game 2.
Here, Black played 11...cxd4, which was premature. Black cannot yet exploit the opening of the c-file, yet this pawn exchange gives White (after recapturing at d4) the option of developing the b-knight to c3 rather than d2. 11...Qc7 was indicated.
White now played 15.Bd3. Better seems 15.Bb1, so that after 15...Nd7 16.Nf1 f5, White could play 17.exf5 and still be protecting his d-pawn.
21.Re2 seems stronger than the text move 21.Qd2, in order to reach the c-file. After 21.Re2 the game might have continued 21...Nb7 22.Rc1 Qd7 23.Rec2 (Threatening to exchange all the rooks and then play Nxe5 dxe5; Bxe7.) 23...Rxc2 24.Qxc2 Nc5 25.Ne3, and Black remains under pressure.
Black now might have considered 25...Rxf3 26.gxf3 Qxh3, with a pawn for the exchange and many White targets.
---
Each of the first two games involved an early pawn move that I feel shouldn't have been made (10.f4 in game 1, and 11...cxd4 in game 2), which I thought worth mentioning in case it might suggest a potential avenue for honing one's chess judgement.
My comment on game 3 concerns the following position:
White played 13.b4 e5 14.b5, but this turned out to have a tactical hole.
This shouldn't be surprising, being that White's queen's knight and light-square bishop were less mobile than their Black counterparts and White hadn't yet castled. In such a situation, apparently favorable tactics for the side whose development is both behind and less effective should be distrusted.
Another drawback of White's playing 13.b4 is that Black doesn't need to play 13...e5 but can instead reply 13...Nh5, threatening 14...Bxc3 or 14...Nf4 (with the ideas of invading at d3 or trading White's light-square bishop). This seems to force 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.b5 (hoping to find a tempo to play g3...), but 15...Nb4 threatens 16...Nc2+ or 16...Nf4.
Advancing the b-pawn so far also renders White's queenside majority less mobile, by making the c-pawn ( the "candidate" ) backward. It also creates a hole at c5.
Finally, the specter of 13...e5, although it would give Black an edge, doesn't seem to warrant desperation by White. If the game went 13. O-O e5, then protecting the e-bishop by 14.Rfe1 would anticipate 14...Nd4 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Bxd4 (viable because White's e-bishop is protected as a result of White's 14th move), or 14...e4 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Rad8 17.Bc3 (refusing to concede the long diagonal to its Black counterpart) 17...e3 18.fxe3 Rxe3 (threatening 19...Rxc3 20.bxc3 Rxd2) 19.Nf3, which again illustrates the merit of protecting White's e-bishop. (See the next two chess movies for these continuations.)
- move 1 could not be played: Invalid PGN : Error converting move O-O
13.O-O e5 14.Rfe1 Nd4 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Bxd4
- move 1 could not be played: Invalid PGN : Error converting move O-O
13.O-O e5 14.Rfe1 e4 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Rad8 17.Bc3 e3 18.fxe3 Rxe3 19.Nf3
Although Black would retain the above-mentioned superior piece placement after 13.O-O e5, leveraging this into a decisive advantage seems more difficult than after the game continuation of 13.b4.
@FMDavidHLevin
Regarding game 3, absolutely agree.
Allowing e5 wasn't as bad as all that and certainly better than what I did.
I forgot to mention, my opponent Lewis said after the game:
"How did I lose that!?"
Words we have ALL muttered at some point or other.... 😞
@64squaresofpain saidAfter a player gains a material advantage that should be decisive, there's a tendency to lose focus, perhaps in the belief that the player will win simply because (s)he "deserves" to. (I'm not saying that this affected Lewis, only that it's common.)
@FMDavidHLevin
I forgot to mention, my opponent Lewis said after the game:
"How did I lose that!?"
Words we have ALL muttered at some point or other.... 😞
But I think you deserve credit for defending tenaciously. If you are even half as diligent after you've gained a winning position, you won't remain under 2000 for long!
Here are my comments on game 4.
The continuation 10...exd4 11.cxd4 gave White a half-open c-file opposite a currently backward pawn, and a much stronger center. Black's 10th move might be justified if he were to now counter in the center, such as by ...d5 or by ...Na5 followed by ...c5. If Black isn't prepared to do this, then 10...exd4 should not be played.
12.d5 seems the principled reaction, as it would present Black with a positional dilemma (after the attacked knight moves): accept a backward c-pawn; or advance the c-pawn and accept a backward, isolated d-pawn (after White plays dxc6).
Comments on game 5.
Having created a superior center in the opening, I don't think that Black should so readily dissolve it by playing 7...dxe4. I'd be inclined to maintain the pawn tension by further protecting the d-pawn with 7...Be6 (intending 8...Nbd7).
I eventually want to get Nd7 in, so this seemed normal
Playing 9...Na6 (with the idea of 10...Nc5, while leaving the h3/c8 diagonal open) seems worth considering.
Here, Black played 11...Bc7. The more active 11...Bc5 might have seemed risky in light of 12.Ncxe5, but then 12...Nxe5 13.Qxd8 Nxf3+ 14.gxf3 Raxd8 (Intending to meet 15.fxg4 by the unpinning 15...g5, soon to be followed by regaining the pawn.) 15.Bxf6 (Intending to maintain the extra pawn at the cost of giving Black pressure after after 15...gxf6 16.fxg4 Rd2.) 15...Bxf3 (This exchange sacrifice results in much greater mobility for Black.) 16.Bxd8 Rxd8 (Now this piece threatens to reach the g-file via Black's third rank.) 17.e5 (Preventing 17...Rd6.) 17...Rd2 (Threatening 18...Be2, and if the f-rook moves away, the e2-bishop withdraws so as to renew the threat to White's f-pawn.), and any winning chances belong to Black. See the next chess movie for this sequence.
- move 1 could not be played: Invalid PGN : Error converting move Nc4
11.Nc4 Bc5 12.Ncxe5 Nxe5 13.Qxd8 Nxf3+ 14.gxf3 Raxd8 15.Bxf6 Bxf3 16.Bxd8 Rxd8 17.e5 Rd2
The text move 15...g5 captures space without there being a clear way for Black to exploit it (such as by maneuvering a knight to f4). 15...g6 might be better, with the idea of ...Nh5 followed by either ...Nf4 or ...Kg7 and ...f5.
Hi 64,
Good post. Only looked at game one. A wee bit untidy in the opening.
If you are going to play the Lopez then you have to know a smattering of
all the not so common but playable replies. 5.Bxc6 looks like a bailing
out because you did not know the theory.
I was fed up meeting them so switched to the delayed exchange (waited for
Nf6) many years ago. At our level it's better to get your pet line in first.
BTW did you notice the ECO code for this opening; C64! perhaps you should
take it up, though in my day a C64 was a Commodore 64 (a prehistoric X-Box)
The only thing I know about the line in your game is the trap. (see below)
Because apparently A.R.B. Thomas fell into twice. Once in a British Ch.
An instructive use of the declined draw offer. Right after it was refused out
came a 'I'll teach you to refuse a draw' lemon.
This is quite common, best not to offer a draw but to prove it OTB.
Your sudden activity threw him and he started to drift, lose the thread.
He got himself into a pickle trying to keep you out and started seeing back rank
ghosts, else as you mentioned, 32...Rd1+ keeps him in the game, though White still
has a definite plus, there was still work to be done.
It would have avoided that final position which is probably still giving him nightmares.
Everything including the King is hanging.
The Thomas Trap. I have a head full of these things. Knight e6 (or e3) with
the d-pawn pinned is a trick I've used before in various settings but not in this
opening. These wee ideas crop all the time v poor opening play.