Wednesday evening was busy at the Albany Area Chess Club. The team from RPI visited again, this time to play a CDCL match versus the AACC B team. That turned out well for the AACC. The B team won narrowly 2 ½ - 1 ½.
While the match was going on the scheduled lecture was held in another room. We have been calling this series of talks “Beginners’ Lectures”. That is a bit of a misnomer. Attendance has been evenly divided between inexperienced players and others such as Jonathan Lack, Glen Perry and Tim Wright with years of serious tournament play under their belts. This mix has worked well bringing insights to the discussions from these strong players. April’s talk will be about openings; strategy, tactics and positional play. It will not be focused on specific variations, but present some guidelines and useful insights.
The RPI - AACC B Team match lineup and results were:
Board 1 Carlos Varela Peter Henner 0 - 1
Board 2 Brian Furtado Arthur Alowitz 0 - 1
Board 3 Max Katz Jared Gonzales ½ - ½
Board 4 Naamad, Y Ken Rossman 1 - 0
The first named in the above is the RPI team.
The match began inauspiciously for RPI when their first board, Carlos Varela, dropped a piece just out of the opening to Peter Henner and resigned shortly thereafter. The other three games went on for some hours. On board two Art Alowitz found a hole in Brian Furtado’s knowledge of endgame theory and won a K+P versus K ending. This was after a game marred with errors by both sides that the participants suggested should not be published. Gonzales and Katz played to a draw it what looked like an even affair throughout. That brings us to the featured game for today. It is a win for Naamad for RPI. Played on the bottom board, It had some interesting moments when the players found inspired moves that were followed up by serious mistakes, a very up and down game for sure.
Naamad, Y. (RPI)- Rossman, Ken (AACC B) B40]
CDCL Match RPI v Albany B Guilderland, NY, 30.03.2011
1.e4 c5 [2.Nf3 e6 3.d3 d5 4.Nbd2 Nc6
A Closed Sicilian from the “unusual lines” chapter.
5.g3 Bd6 6.Qe2!?,..
Normal is 6 Bg2. It is not a good idea to delay in filling the fianchetto square g2 immediately with the Bishop. Bad things can happen if the Bishop is not where it belongs.
5..., Nge7 7.e5!?,..
Very committal. Again 7 Bg2, is standard play.
7..., Bc7 8.Nb3 b6 9.d4 cxd4?!
Better 9..., a5; threatening 10..., Ba6; raising questions about how White has disposed his forces. If the Bishop goes to g2, 10..., Ba6; puts an obstacle in the way of White castling on the K-side. After 9..., a5; castling long for White is not particularly appealing either; the Black pawns are poised to advance opening lines bearing on the White King’s home. The move played is clearly second best. It passes on the logical opportunity to take advantage of the slow fianchetto.
10.Nbxd4 Bb7 11.Bg5?,..
There is no justification for continuing to delay moving the Bishop to g2. If White was worried about 11 Bg2 a5; then 12 a4, securing b5 for his Knight is adequate.
11..., h6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Bf4 g5 14.Be3!?,..
Simpler is 14 Bd2. On e3 the Bishop is awkwardly placed.
14..., Ng6!?
Black has his intentions focused on the far advanced e-pawn. A solid edge can be tried for with the imaginative 14..., d4!?; then 15 Rd1 Qd5; attempts to continue to punish White for his slowness in developing the K-side.
15.Bd4 0–0 16.Bg2 f6!?
A nice idea but unclear.
17.exf6 Rxf6!?
It seems here Mr. Rossman may have seen the natural 17..., e5; does not lead to clear sailing after 18 h4!? exd4 19 Qe6+. It was probably best to continue in this way even though things are murky. The sacrifice of the Exchange does have some attractive aspects. Black has pawns with which to control the center and White does not.
GM Andy Soltis sets out conditions in his book Rethinking the Chess Pieces for justifying the sacrifice of the Exchange. They are; a) when it changes substantially changes the impact of the minor pieces; b) when it prevents the Rooks behaving like Rooks; c) when there are several minor pieces on the board; and d) when the sacrifice inflicts significant pawn damage. In the present case, there is a mixed result when measured against the conditions set out by Soltis. Potentially the Black Bishops can become more active. The White Rooks are not prevented from acting like Rooks, in fact there are two open central files where the Rooks can be very much Rooks. There certainly enough minor pieces on the board. Arguably the disappearance of a White center pawn is damage, but overall, the remaining White pawns are sound. So, the sacrifice is questionable, but the attempt makes this game interesting.
18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.c3 a6?!
After making a significant material investment, Black must display accuracy in the follow up. Here thematic is; 19...e5. A possible line is; 20.0–0–0 Rd8 21.h4 g4 22.Ne1 h5 23.Nc2 e4 24.Qe3 Rf8 25.Nb4 Qxf2 26.Qg5 Be8 27.Nxd5 Bxg3 28.Bxe4 Bf4+ 29.Nxf4 Qxf4+ 30.Qxf4 Rxf4 31.Bxg6 Bxg6 32.Rhf1 Rxf1 33.Rxf1, and White is very close to winning. It is a long variation and there may well be improvements to be found that could change the evaluation.
A factor not mentioned specifically about Exchange sacrifices by Soltis that operates for any material sacrifice is; the initiative has to be held on to. The text is part of a scheme by Black to but a Bishop on b5. Once there the Bishop might skewer the White Queen and Rook if White castles short, or at least it will make a Rook defending f2 from f1 unlikely. Then the Black Queen and Rook may be able to do something down the f-file. Unfortunately for Black, White can defeat that idea by fairly simple means. That being so, the initiative slips from Black, and once gone the material deficit looms large.
20.Nd4 Bd7 21.0–0 Qf7 22.Qf3 Ne5 23.Qxf7+ Kxf7 24.Rad1 Rd8
Better 24..., Re8; shoring up e6.
25.Nf3 Ng6 26.Nd4 Ne7 27.Rd3?,..
The alternative here is 27 Bh3, followed by f2-f4. This is a better path than the one followed in the game. In this alternative there are chances for Black to sacrifice a pawn on the Q-side (.., b6-b5; and ..,b5-b4;) to open lines for the Bishops, and the White Rooks do not have quite enough space along the 1st rank to avoid having to return the Exchange. In the alternative cited White gets a pawn for his troubles.
27..., e5 28.Rf3+?,..
Rooks cut sorry figures in front of pawns when the board is congested. This is another example of that bit of chess wisdom. Better is 28 Nc2.
28..., Kg6 29.Ne2 e4 30.Re3 Nf5
White now had to return material. It is the sorrowful result of getting a Rook tangled up in front of his own pawns.
31.Bxe4?,..
Incorrect. Why not just give up the Exchange with 31 Nd4, Nxe3 32 fxe3, getting the Knight to a strong post leaving Black with only some slight advantage? Again, time trouble perhaps, or a miscalculation after a couple of hours of play. Or, White had been winning for some moves, the game slipped out of his control, and he could not readjust to the changed circumstances. All are possibilities. The question can only be answered Mr. Naamad.
31..., dxe4 32.Rxe4 Nd6 33.Re3 Nc4 34.Re7 Bd6 35.Re4 Nd2 36.Rd4 Nxf1 37.Rxd6+ Kg7 38.Kxf1 h5?
Sadly, after some very creative play, Black misses his chance. With 38..., Bh3+!; he could have collected a Rook and won the game going away. I did not note the clock time situation in this game. It is possible time pressure played a role. After this slip a number of Black pawns fall deciding the outcome.
39.Kg1,..
White spots his error and corrects it immediately. Marginally better is 39 Ke1.
39..., Kf7 40.Rxb6 Be6 41.Rxa6 Bc4 42.Ra7+ Ke6 43.Nd4+ Kf6 44.a4 Re8 45.f4 1–0
The game went on for some more moves, but the three connected “passers” on the Q-side never allowed any doubt about the eventual outcome.
Mr. Rossman can be proud of his creative effort; the Exchange sacrifice was no routine shot such as the Rook capturing on c3 in some variations of the Sicilian. But for the momentary lapse on move 38, he might well have taken the full point. Mr. Naamad can be satisfied with his effort also. In the end he did take the point, and facing a rather inspired sacrifice he maintained his sangfroid obtaining a near winning edge. The opponents traded mistakes. Black’s came last and it decided the game.
A worthwhile note; the winner, Yonathan Naamad is rated under 1000, and Ken Rossman is rated about 1300. Rossman plays rated chess very infrequently. It is my opinion these fellows put on a show in this game worthy of much higher rated players. They had ideas and were willing to take risks to try them out. Congratulations to both for providing entertaining chess.
More soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment