Old Age and Guile Defeat Youth and Talent Yet Again

The Dutch Defense has had an odd history. Way back in the days Lasker and Capablanca it was considered too offbeat for the top of the line players. Along came Botvinnik using it on occasion to good effect. He tried it twice in his drawn match with Flohr in 1933, winning both. That was this result that announced Botvinnik’s entry to the ranks of the world elite. Even so successful a sponsor did not really do that much for the opening’s popularity, and since then the Dutch shows up irregularly at the top level. Down among the lesser lights the Dutch is quite a regular debut. There are several local players who prefer it above other answers to Q-side openings. Jon Leisner is a devotee of the Dutch. This time out, Jon gets himself into trouble at the end of the opening phase of the game and has to call upon all of his guile to take the point.

Finnerman, David - Leisner, Jon [A96]
Board 1, CDCL Match Capital Region Team v Schenectady Geezers, Schenectady, NY, 29.03.2012

1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0–0 6.0–0 d6

So far all is according to theory. More popular is 6..., d5; setting up the “Stonewall” formation. The text contemplates something different; the advance of the e-pawn with a possible push of the f-pawn later to open a direct K-side assault.

From out of the mists of time, here is a game from the great Nottingham Tournament of 1936 featuring play, in the opening, similar to our game:

(17670) Alexander, Conel Hughes O’Donal - Tartakower, Saviely [A99]
Nottingham, 1936
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.Nc3 d6 7.d4 Qe8 8.b3 Qh5 9.Ba3 Nbd7 10.Qc2 Ng4 11.Rad1 a6 12.Rfe1 Rb8 13.e4 fxe4 14.Nxe4 b6 15.h3 Nh6 16.Bc1 Qg6 17.Qe2 Bb7 18.Neg5 Bxg5 19.Nxg5 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 e5 21.dxe5 Nxe5 22.f4 Nd7 23.Qe6+ Qxe6 24.Nxe6 Rfc8 25.Nxg7 Nf8 26.Ne6 b5 27.cxb5 axb5 28.Nxf8 Kxf8 29.g4 Nf7 30.f5 c5 31.Bf4 Rc6 32.Re6 Ra8 33.Rd2 Raa6 34.g5 Kg7 35.h4 c4 36.h5 d5 37.Rxc6 Rxc6 38.Rxd5 Ra6 39.Rxb5 Rxa2+ 40.Kf3 Ra3 41.f6+ Kf8 42.Rb8+ 1–0

The protagonists in the above game were not so many years later to become heroes during WWII, Tartakower in the French resistance and C. H. O’D. Alexander as a code breaker for Great Britain.

7.d4 Nc6?

It was not easy to find much in the databases on this move. The strong players avoided it. Why? This game by GM Ivkov provides some explanation;

(83300) Ivkov, Borislav - Pardo, Nixon [A96]
Olot (9), 1969
1.d4 f5 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.dxe6 Nxc4 10.Qd3 Bxe6 11.Ng5 Qd7 12.Nxe6 Qxe6 13.Nd5 Ne5 14.Qxf5 Qf7 15.Nxc7 Qc4 16.Qe6+ Qxe6 17.Nxe6 Rf7 18.Bxb7 Rb8 19.Bg2 d5 20.b3 Ne4 21.Bb2 Rb6 22.Nf4 Ng4 23.Bd4 Rb4 24.Rad1 Rxd4 25.Rxd4 Ngxf2 26.Rxf2 Bc5 27.Bxe4 1–0

The push to d5 on move 8 does not have to wreck Black quite so completely as it does in the Ivkov game, but the move should give White a distinct superiority.

8.b3?!,..

There is not much wrong with this move other than it foregoes the opportunity noted above.

8..., e5?!

On the surface this move seems to be what is called for, but Black has to retire the Nc6 to its original square. The “un-development” was not all that pleasing to Mr. Leisner if his body language was any evidence. Perhaps it would have been better to play 8..., Ne4; then 9 Bb2 Bf6 10 Qd3 d5; brings the game to a position that is not so far removed from standard Dutch formations.

9.d5 Nb8 10.Bb2 Qe8

Black is determined to undertake action on the K-side. Not a bad idea. The early advance of the f-pawn certainly suggest such a plan. However, the general principle; development before attack, should be honored here with 10..., a5; to be followed by .., Nb8-a6; and .., Na6-c5; if White does not act to prevent it. Of course, playing so could easily forego the chance to develop an attack on the White King. The battle would likely become a positional contest about the square c5, and when you make up your mind to go for “the gold” with an assault on the King it is difficult to turn away.

11.Nb5 Bd8 12.Rc1 a6 13.Nc3 Qh5 14.Qd2 Ng4?

This has to be incorrect. Black’s development lags, and he does not have an overwhelming superiority of force in the critical sector. More reasonable is 14..., Ncd7; heading for c5.

15.h3 Nh6 16.c5!,..

Contrary to what Black had hoped for, the fight is really about the c5 square and the c-file. Given the lack of development of the Black forces, it is no surprise his undermanned attack was not able to keep White from finding strong counter-chances on the Q-side.

16..., g5?

You can admire the single minded determination Mr. Leisner displays, but this move takes a slightly worse position into very dangerous territory. Keeping the game from going out of control with; 16..., e4 17 Nd4 dxc5 18 Ne6 Bxe6 19 dxe6 Nc6 20 Nd5 Bg5 21 e3 Qe8; when White has the edge notwithstanding the pawn sacrificed. The game is then very complicated, and White can easily go astray.

17.cxd6!?,..

White misses a move that is by no means easy to find; 17 Na4! Then, 17..., g4 18 cxd6 gxf3 19 exf3 c6 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 Bxe5, and White has three pawns for the piece. Even worse for Black is all of his remaining pawns are isolated and weak, while shelter for his King is almost entirely gone. The move chosen skips this set of complications and heads into another sacrificial line.

17..., cxd6 18.Nb5 axb5 19.Rxc8 g4 20.Nxe5 dxe5 21.Bxe5 Be7 22.Rxf8+?,..

Mr. Finnerman could have crowned his work with 22 Rc7! Play becomes even more complicated thereafter with White counting on his passed pawn to obtain return of the material invested with interest. The game might continue; 22..., Bf6 23 Bxf6 Rxf6 24 d6 Na6 25 Qd5+ Nf7 26 hxg4 Nxc7 27 dxc7 Qxg4 28 Qxb7 Rf8 29 c8(Q). Although White still must play accurately to avoid tricks and traps, the position is clearly won for him. A big chunk of the advantage earned through enterprising play disappears after the text.

22..., Bxf8 23.Rc1?!,..

Time was becoming a concern for White. Mr. Leisner had about one hour left, and Mr. Finnerman was slipping towards just twenty minutes left. Possibly the concern for the clock led White to haste. The text looks reasonable. What could be wrong with activating the least active White piece? Tactics! Minor tactical features can make the conversion even slight advantages possible. Here for example; a glance at the position tells most of us capturing on g4 would get rid of the worry about h3, but if Black recaptures with the Knight then mate at h2 looms. Some study and there turns out to be a way to do this with; 23 d6, pushing this passed pawn opens the diagonal a2-g8 and a strong draft is blowing on the Black King. If then; 23..., Nc6 24 hxg4 Nxg4? 25 Bd5+, wins. If Black improves with 24..., fxg4; White obtains good chances with 25 Bf4 Nf7 26 Bd5.

23..., Nd7 24.Bb2 Bd6

Now Black is out of trouble and maybe even slightly better.

25.h4 Nf7 26.Qd3!?,..

With 26 Bd4, the game arrives at a place where the two pawns White has for the piece does not compensate for the piece minus. Recognizing this White looks for activity.

26..., Rxa2

Perhaps 26..., f4; adding to the tension in the position tests White more than the text.

27.Rc8+ Nf8 28.Qd4?!,..

White was now under ten minutes on his clock. Here 28 Qb1, keeps the game close. After the text, Black begins to take control.

28..., Qh6 29. Bc1 Qg7 30.Qb6 Ra1 31.Kh2 Qf6 32.Qe3,..

Trying to work his way through the tactics has used up time and White has less than five minutes remaining.

32..., Qxh4+ 33.Kg1 Qf6 0-1

There were a few more moves, however, the game is essentially over now. White had the advantage as the game transitioned to the middle game. He found a very testing line of play leading to a plus for him. Exploiting this advantage is where White had problems. None of the improvements I have suggested were obvious. Finnerman used just about all of his available time so it can’t be said he did not work hard to find the right path. Both players demonstrated a certain amount of stubbornness in the game. Jon Leisner wanted a K-side attack whether justified by the position or not, and David Finnerman bet all of his chances on a counter-attack on his opponent’s King instead of positional play. It is a very delicate piece of judgment choosing between direct attack and making positional moves that may delay the attack. In a subtle way, this game illustrates Aagaard’s forced and unforced thinking concept. Forcing a position to conform to your assumptions can cost points.

Fairly early in the evening the Chu - Denham game was a win for the Capital Region team. Not long after Northrup - Mockler evened the score when Mr. Mockler came back from a bad situation to “out-tactic” his young opponent. Just before today’s game ended, John Phillips, after taking great risks in opening and obtaining a poor position, took advantage of a fundamental mistake by Chris Caravaty, and won his game. This game on the first board decided the match.

There was a fairly long period where it appeared the Geezers would be lucky to draw the match and a real possibility they might lose it. The Geezer’s drew on their considerable experience and tenacity to reach a hard fought match victory. Future CDCL opponents should take a warning from these games, the Capital Region team has to be taken seriously if upsets are to be avoided.

More soon.