The fifth round of the 2002 Capital District Invitational saw the clash of leaders on the first board that we have recently chronicled, Battes versus Spraggett, which Grant Spraggett won in dashing style, and with the game he also won the tournament by a wide margin. At the beginning of the last round the status of the tournament leaders was: Spraggett had 3 ½ points, three wins and a draw. Battes had 3 - 1, two wins, two draws. Tied with Battes in second place was Mitchell Goldberg also with 3 - 1 points, two wins and two draws. These three had clearly out distanced the trailing group; Morse, 1 ½ - 2 ½ Michelman, 1 - 3, and Steffek, 0 - 4.
The “star” game of the round was Battes - Spraggett. The onus was on Battes to get at least a draw to tighten up the standings. If he could win, Battes might have had a piece of first place. We’ve seen that was not to be. But what of Goldberg? His opponent in this round had not done terribly well so far. Time trouble had cost Michelman important points, and he had not won since the first round. Mitchell Goldberg was the second highest rated in the seeding and he had only conceded draws to Spraggett and the surging Battes. The informal handicapping before play began said Goldberg would probably win the game mostly because of Michelman’s tendency to fall into time difficulties, particularly against tough opponents. Time trouble did come about for Peter, but this time it did not cost Peter as dearly as in the past.
Michelman, Peter - Goldberg, Mitchell [A87]
Capital District Invitational Albany, NY, 21.04.2002
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.c4 0–0 6.Nc3 d6 7.0–0 Qe8
The mainline Dutch was Goldberg’s weapon of choice in 2002 against 1 d4. The databases have many games in this line between strong Grandmasters. That is an indication of the soundness of the ideas for Black.
8.d5 Na6
Still we are in the mainstream of theory. Here is a GM game showing how they play the position:
Salov, Valery (2665) - Gurevich, Mikhail (2630) [A87]
Reggio Emilia 9192 Reggio Emilia (9), 1992
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 f5 5.0–0 Nf6 6.c4 0–0 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.d5 Na6 9.Rb1 e5 10.dxe6 Bxe6 11.Nd4 c6 12.b4 Bxc4 13.b5 cxb5 14.Ndxb5 Rd8 15.Ba3 d5 16.Nd6 Qe5 17.Nxc4 dxc4 18.Qc2 Nc5 19.Bxc5 Qxc5 20.Rb5 Qd6 21.Rxb7 Kh8 22.Nb5 Qc5 23.a4 a6 24.Nc3 Ng4 25.h3 Ne3 26.fxe3 Qxe3+ 27.Kh2 f4 28.Rf3 fxg3+ 29.Rxg3 Be5 30.Rxh7+ 1–0
9.Rb1 Nc5
Rybka values a number of moves here near equally; 9..., Nc5; 9..., Rb8; 9..., e5; 9..., c5; and 9..., Bd7. I like 9..., Nc5; getting the Knight back into the battle immediately.
10.b4 Nce4 11.Bb2 a5
This move was tried only once before that I could find:
Davenport, Darcy (2200) - Reinemer, Frank (2275) [A87]
Dortmund op-A Dortmund (3), 1993
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.c4 0–0 6.0–0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.d5 Na6 9.Rb1 Nc5 10.b4 Nce4 11.Bb2 a5 12.a3 axb4 13.axb4 e5 14.dxe6 Bxe6 15.Nd2 Nxc3 16.Bxc3 c6 17.Qc2 Qf7 18.Ra1 Rxa1 19.Rxa1 Bxc4 20.Ra7 Bd5 21.Bxd5 Nxd5 22.Bxg7 Qxg7 23.Nc4 Qc7 24.Qb3 Qb8 25.Ra1 Kg7 26.Qb2+ Nf6 27.Qd4 d5 28.Ne5 Kg8 29.Rc1 Qd6 30.Ra1 Nd7 31.Nxd7 Qxd7 32.Ra7 Rc8 33.Qb6 Rb8 34.Ra3 Kf7 35.Rc3 Ra8 36.Qd4 Re8 37.e3 Qd6 38.Ra3 h5 [38...Re4] 39.Ra7 Qd7 40.Qb6 Re7 41.Qd4 Qd8 42.Qa1 Qb8 43.Ra8 Qe5 44.Qa5 Rd7 45.Qc5 Qe7 46.Qd4 Rd8 47.Ra7 Ke6 48.Qb6 Rd7 49.b5 Kf7 50.bxc6 bxc6 51.Ra6 Rc7 52.h4 Kg7 53.Ra8 Kh7 54.Qd4 Qg7 55.Qc5 Qe7 ½–½
12.b5 e5 13.dxe6 Bxe6 14.Nd5,..
White might have tried the tactic from the Darcy - Reinemer game and played 14 Nd2. The game now tilts just slightly in the favor of Black.
14..., Qf7 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Rc1 d5?
Townsend wrote in his tournament notes: “This rather provocative move gives White a big initiative.” True then and true now. Better 17..., Rae8; or even 17..., b6; when, if 18 Nd4 Rae8; not fearing the Knight for Bishop trade on e6. Black’s remaining Knight will have a home on e4 until White surrenders the Bishop for the horseman. That ensures equal play for Black at the least.
18.cxd5 Rfd8 19.Rxc7 Nc3 20.Qd2 Nxd5 21.Rc5!?,..
Passing on the chance to enter a tactical melee with 21 Rxb7 Bc8 22 Rxh7! Kxh7 23 Ng5+ Kg7 24 Bxd5 Ra7 25 e4! fxe4 26 Nxe4 Qe5 27 Qe3 Rc7; and White has a substantial advantage. After the game was over, Peter thought this was a better choice. With the benefit of even more distant hindsight, and the help of my trusty electronic assistant Rybka, things are not so clear after 28 Bc6 Bd7 29 Ng5 Re8 30 Qb6. White is certainly fully compensated for the Exchange, and Black is in danger of dropping another pawn. There is a but however; seeing all that in critical game and calculating all the side variations is a huge task. The text retains much of the advantage without “rolling the dice” by investing an Exchange in a line challenges human calculation. A sound decision from a practical perspective.
21..., Nb4?
A benefit from White’s last move is Black has to find the best answer. White is thinking about h6, g5 and c7 as posts for his Queen, Knight and Rook heralding a direct attack on the Black King. Goldberg is seduced by a chance to uncover an attack on the White Queen with the associated opportunity to threaten the White a-pawn. It is not often we see a master getting distracted from the main threat by a dangling pawn. This game illustrates the dangers of such distraction. White would still have a substantial edge after the better 21..., Nb6 22 Qh6 Rd7 23 a3 Rad8; when Rybka sees White still ahead, but it is by no means clear to this human being just how he will carry the day. After say, 24 Ne5 (Rybka’s suggestion) 24..., Re7 25 Rfc1 Bb3; White will likely have to give up on the immediate K-side attack and retreat the Queen to f4 or e3.
22.Qh6 Qe7 23.Ng5 Bxa2 24.Rfc1 Nd5 25.e4!,..
This move must have been undervalued by Mr. Goldberg when he was evaluating the position at move 21. He said after the game that he knew it was coming. The Knight and Queen combination on h6 and g5 are powerful force. Combined with the potential penetration of the White Rook to the 7th rank, it wrings all the defensive strength out of the Black position.
25..., fxe4?!
Things are bad for Black so he tries a trick, and it works, at least it works a little bit. Best, but not saving the game is; 25..., Nf6 26 exf5 Ng4 27 Qh4 gxf5 28 Rxf5 Ne3! 29 fxe3 Qxf3+ 30 Rf2 Qxc1+ 31 Bf1 Rd7; muddying up the position to the maximum. White retains the winning advantage, however there are several places in which to go wrong.
26.Bxe4?!,..
Falling in with Black hopes. More principled is; 26 Bh3. With that move White, having gotten much from his threats to the Black King shifts his focus to the other side of the board. The moves; 26..., Nf6 27 Rc7 Qf8 28 Qh4 Nh5 29 Be6+, likely winning material and leading the game to simplification and big plus in the ending. By capturing on e4, White gives Black a glimmer of a chance.
26..., Nf6 27.Bf3 Bd5?
Nearly blasting his own chances. Black had to play 27..., Rd7; although he is still lost if White finds the exact 28 R5c2. Mr. Michelman was now deep into his not unusual problems with the clock. Criticism of his moves is pointless. He is running on intuition and the understanding of the position gained while using so much of the available time. Thinking has no part in his move choices now.
28.Rc7 Rd7 29.Bxd5+?,..
The wages of using great chunks of minutes to understand a position is missing simple wins. With 29 Rc8 +, Peter could have brought on a Rook and pawn ending that is won for White. Two things got in the way of that decision; no time to think and the number of moves that would have to be played in such an ending. White only five minutes for the rest of his moves, and he no doubt wanted something more sooner.
29..., Nxd5 30.Rxd7 Qxd7 31.Rd1,..
The advantage White had has dwindled away to not much more than an initiative.
31..., Rc8?!
More resistance can be found with 31..., Rd8; then 32 h4 Qe7 33 h5 Rd6 34 Rc1 Nb6; leaves White with the edge but many, many more moves to play.
32.Nxh7?!,..
Bill T. said of this move: “Instead of wasting more time tying to find a quick win, White decides to go for a promising ending where he is up a pawn.” It is true White will ahead by a pawn but how promising the ending will be is not at all clear. The time had gone down to 2:34 for Michelman. Mr. Goldberg had 30 minutes remaining.
32..., Ne3??
With oodles of time Mitchell Goldberg must have been caught up in his opponent’s pressure. Better is 32..., Qxh7; accepting what appears to be a somewhat worse endgame. Play might continue; 33 Qxh7+ Kxh7 34 Rxd5 Kh6 35 Rd7 Rb8 36 f3 a4 37 Rd2 Ra8 38 Kf2 Ra5 39 Rb2 a3 40 Ra2 Rxb5 41 Rxa3 Rb2+; and Black has gone a long way towards equalizing the game. If White gives up the h-pawn for the Black b-pawn, we reach a position that Levenfish and Smyslov in their book; Rook Endings, Batsfford, London,1971, hold is drawn if the superior side does not have a passed pawn. Fine, in Basic Chess Endings, Makay, NYC, 1941, has a similar opinion excepting only special cases where the superior King can penetrate to the opposing pawn. I don’t know what the table bases say about the matter. Very probably they reach the same conclusion while spelling out the best ways to make the inferior side suffer.
That theoretical background leads me to believe Mr. Goldberg’s judgment was clouded for a moment by Mr. Michelman’s time trouble. I have observed the phenomenon in the games of Michelman and Sells, the other local time trouble specialist. It is so, so easy to fall into the trap of quick tactical moves to “punish” your time troubled opponent. I have done so against Michelman and Sells and regretted the lost points bitterly. Goldberg spoils what could have been a case of inspired defense with his hasty trick.
33.Nf6+! 1-0
Mr. Goldberg resigned in face of; 33..., Kf7 34 Rxd7+ Kxf6 35 Qxe3, when even with only a minute or two left there is no doubt Peter will mate soon.
A disappointment for Goldberg and some vindication for Michelman’s efforts at this event.
More soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment